Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37775825›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023

Co-creation of a patient engagement strategy in cancer research funding.

Michael S Taccone, Nathalie Baudais, Don Wood, Suzanne Bays, Sasha Frost, Robin Urquhart, Ian D Graham, Judit Takacs

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Michael S TacconeChildhood Cancer Survivor Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Nathalie BaudaisCanadian Cancer Society, 55 St Clair Ave W Suite 500, Toronto, ON, M4V 2Y7, Canada.
Don WoodCanadian Cancer Society, 55 St Clair Ave W Suite 500, Toronto, ON, M4V 2Y7, Canada.
Suzanne BaysCanadian Cancer Society, 55 St Clair Ave W Suite 500, Toronto, ON, M4V 2Y7, Canada.
Sasha FrostCanadian Cancer Society, 55 St Clair Ave W Suite 500, Toronto, ON, M4V 2Y7, Canada.
Robin UrquhartDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Ian D GrahamSchools of Epidemiology and Public Health & Nursing, University of Ottawa, 600 Peter Morand Crescent, Ottawa, ON, K1G 5Z3, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3669-1216
Judit TakacsCanadian Cancer Society, 55 St Clair Ave W Suite 500, Toronto, ON, M4V 2Y7, Canada. Judit.takacs@cancer.ca.
Canadian Cancer Society · CADalhousie University · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs research teams, networks, and institutes, and health, medical, and scientific communities begin to build consensus on the benefits of patient engagement in cancer research, research funders are increasingly looking to meaningfully incorporate patient partnership within funding processes and research requirements. The Canadian Cancer Society (CCS), the largest non-profit cancer research funder in Canada, set out to co-create a patient engagement in cancer research strategy with patients, survivors, caregivers and researchers. The goal of this strategy was to meaningfully and systematically engage with patients in research funding and research activities.

methodsA team of four patient partners with diverse cancer and personal experiences, and two researchers at different career stages agreed to participate as members of the strategy team. Ten staff members participated in supportive roles and to give context regarding different departments of CCS. The strategy was co-developed in 2021/2022 over a series of 7 workshops using facilitation strategies such as ground rules and consensus building, and methods such as Design Thinking. The strategy was subjected to 3 rounds of validation.

resultsThe co-creation and validation process resulted in a multi-faceted strategy with actionable sections, including vision, guiding principles, engagement methods, 13 prioritized engagement activities spanning the spectrum of research funding, and an evaluation framework. The experience of co-creating the strategy was captured using the Patient and Public Engagement Evaluation Tool and revealed a positive, supportive experience.

conclusionsLessons learned included the value of an emphasis on a co-creation process from day one, the utility of facilitation techniques such as ground rules for dialogue, consensus building and Design Thinking, and the importance (and challenge) of designing for and incorporating equity when drafting the strategy. Future work will include implementation and evaluation of the strategy, as well as an examination of further ways to meaningfully and systematically engage diverse voices in research and research funding.

Indexed as

Co-creationPatient engagementResearch fundingStrategy development

Identifiers

PMID37775825
PMCPMC10542220
OpenAlexW4387166543

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.