Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37648965›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2023

Public and patient involvement: a survey on knowledge, experience and opinions among researchers within a precision oncology European project.

Paola Mosconi, Cinzia Colombo, Pasquale Paletta, Laura Gangeri, Chiara Pellegrini, Elena Garralda, Rosalba Miceli, Cinzia Brunelli, CEE_DART Consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Evaluating the Involvement of People With Cancer and Informal Caregivers in the Development Process of a New Set of Quality of Life Questionnaires.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Paola MosconiLaboratory of Medical Research and Consumer Involvement, Department of Medical Epidemiology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri 2, 20156, Milan, Milan, Italy. paola.mosconi@marionegri.it.
Cinzia ColomboLaboratory of Medical Research and Consumer Involvement, Department of Medical Epidemiology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri 2, 20156, Milan, Milan, Italy.
Pasquale PalettaLaboratory of Medical Research and Consumer Involvement, Department of Medical Epidemiology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri 2, 20156, Milan, Milan, Italy.
Laura GangeriClinical Psychology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Chiara PellegriniPalliative Care, Pain Therapy and Rehabilitation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Elena GarraldaVall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO) and Vall d, Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.
Rosalba MiceliDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Trial Organization, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Cinzia BrunelliPalliative Care, Pain Therapy and Rehabilitation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
CEE_DART Consortium

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27338European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme No 965397
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient and Public Involvement (PPI) is slowly but steadily being implemented in all phases of clinical research. As part of the European project "Building Data Rich Clinical Trials" a survey was launched to investigate the knowledge, experiences and opinions on this topic of clinicians and researchers from seven European clinical and non-clinical centers (Cancer Core Europe).

methodsAn invitation to take part in a cross-sectional web survey was sent to 199 clinicians and researchers working in the field of precision oncology. The questionnaire was developed ad hoc because no existing questionnaires met the purpose of this study. The analysis takes account of whether respondents had experience on PPI or not.

resultsOn a total of 101 respondents, this survey reveals that 76.2% of them knew about PPI before answering the questionnaire, 54.5% had experience in the previous five years and 86.1% were interested in a training course on this topic. PPI knowledge grew together with career seniority (peak of 86.5% for established career professionals), while the group most interested in a course was the early-career professionals (100.0%). Finally, the majority of respondents stated they had no training or education on PPI (67.3% of experienced and 82.6% of not-experienced respondents).

conclusionsThis survey shows that most cancer researchers knew the term PPI, even if only a little more than half of them had any relative experience. Opinions on PPI benefits, negative effects, barriers and requirements differed between the groups of PPI experienced and not-experienced respondents, showing that experience itself can influence respondents' opinions. Most of respondents reported they would prefer a training course based on practical rather than theoretical tools.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPatient ParticipationPrecision MedicineSurveys and QuestionnairesParticipatory researchPatient and public involvementPatient engagementPrecision oncologySurvey

Identifiers

PMID37648965
PMCPMC10470190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.