Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35933674›Full record

ArticleThe Permanente journal2022

Engaging Patient Advisory Committees to Inform a Genomic Cancer Risk Study: Lessons for Future Efforts.

Nangel M Lindberg, Kathleen F Mittendorf, Devan M Duenas, Katherine Anderson, Alyssa Koomas, Stephanie A Kraft, Sonia Okuyama, Kelly J Shipman, Meredith L Vandermeer, Katrina Ab Goddard and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Permanente journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Nangel M LindbergDepartment of Translational and Applied Genomics, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA.
Kathleen F MittendorfDepartment of Translational and Applied Genomics, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA.
Devan M DuenasTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Hospital and Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Katherine AndersonDenver Health and Hospital Authority, Denver, CO, USA.
Alyssa KoomasDepartment of Translational and Applied Genomics, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA.
Stephanie A KraftTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Hospital and Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Sonia OkuyamaDenver Health and Hospital Authority, Denver, CO, USA.
Kelly J ShipmanTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Hospital and Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Meredith L VandermeerKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA.
Katrina Ab GoddardDepartment of Translational and Applied Genomics, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA.
Benjamin S WilfondTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Hospital and Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Carmit McMullenKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA.
Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research · USSeattle Children's Hospital · USUniversity of Washington · USHealth and Hospital Corporation · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

Exome sequencing in Diverse Populations in Colorado & OregonU01HG007292 · NHGRI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI LEO, MICHAEL C, WILFOND, BENJAMIN SIMON · 2017 to 2021
$15.7M
NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG007292
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction The Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many study seeks to reduce disparities in genomic care. Two patient advisory committees (PACs) were formed, 1 of English speakers and 1 of Spanish speakers, to vet study processes and materials. Stakeholder engagement in research is relatively new, and we know little about how stakeholders view their engagement. We wanted to learn how patient stakeholders viewed the process, to inform future patient engagement efforts. Methods Patients at 2 study sites were invited to serve on 2 PACs. We used an iterative engagement process to solicit and incorporate patient feedback. Much of the PAC feedback on study materials and processes was incorporated. Using surveys and exit interviews, we evaluated stakeholders' experiences as PAC members. Results Nearly all PAC members felt satisfied and included in the study decisions, but surveys and exit interviews suggested the need to improve communications. Discussion Although most believed their feedback was used, and most felt included in study decisions, some said they did not know whether their opinions were used to modify materials or approaches. This suggests the need to explain to patient stakeholders the extent to which their feedback was used and to inform them about the impact that other stakeholders, such as institutional review boards, have on decisions. Conclusion Our evaluation highlights the value of dedicating resources to stakeholder engagement. Although gathering patient feedback on study materials and processes introduced time constraints and complexity to our study, adaptations to materials and processes furthered study goals.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesNeoplasmsGenomicsHumansPatient ParticipationStakeholder ParticipationdisparitiesGenomicshereditary cancerstakeholder engagementunderserved populations

Identifiers

PMID35933674
PMCPMC9662241
OpenAlexW4283017564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.