Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38037183›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023

What matters to you? Engaging with children in the James Lind Alliance Children's Cancer Priority Setting Partnership.

Susie Aldiss, Penelope Hart-Spencer, Loveday Langton, Sonia Malik, Keeley McEvoy, Jessica E Morgan, Rosa Reed-Berendt, Rachel Hollis, Bob Phillips, Faith Gibson and 1 more

Abstract 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. What Matters Most: The Top 10 Child and Adolescent Cancer Research Priorities in Australia.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Exploring Experiences and Designing Guidance for Involving and Engaging Children and Young People in James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  4. 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

11 authors.

Susie AldissSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Kate Granger Building, 30 Priestley Road, Surrey Research Park, Guildford, GU2 7YH, UK. s.aldiss@surrey.ac.uk.
Penelope Hart-SpencerThe Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Loveday LangtonChildren's Cancer Priority Setting Partnership Steering Group, London, UK.
Sonia MalikYoung Lives vs Cancer, London, UK.
Keeley McEvoyMedical Needs Teaching Service, Leeds Children's Hospital, Leeds, UK.
Jessica E MorganCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Rosa Reed-BerendtPsychological and Mental Health Services, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Rachel HollisLeeds Children's Hospital, Leeds, UK.
Bob PhillipsHull-York Medical School, York, UK.
Faith GibsonSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
James Lind Alliance Children’s Cancer Priority Setting Partnership Steering Group

Funding

Medical Research Council G0800472
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious priority setting exercises have sought to involve children, but in the final reporting, it is evident that few children had been engaged through the process. A primary aim in the Children's Cancer Priority Setting Partnership was to find out from children what they want research to focus on. We report on our experience to inform methods of engagement with children in future James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships and similar exercises.

methodsWe followed the James Lind Alliance process, collecting and shortlisting questions via online surveys with adult survivors of childhood cancer, carers, and professionals, and holding a final workshop. Alongside this, a parallel process to collect and prioritise questions from children was undertaken. We created animations for parents/carers to explain the project and surveys to children, gathered questions via online surveys and held a workshop with children to identify their priorities.

resultsSixty-one children and young people with cancer and 10 siblings, aged 3-21 years, submitted 252 potential questions/topics via the surveys. Submissions were refined into 24 summary questions. These questions were discussed at a workshop with eight children; they also added more questions on topics of importance to them. Workshop participants prioritised the Top 5 questions; top priority was, 'How can we make being in hospital a better experience for children and young people? (like having better food, internet, toys, and open visiting so other family members can be more involved in the child's care)'. The Top 5 also included cancer prevention, treatments closer to home, early diagnosis, and emotional support. These questions were taken to the final workshop at which the Top 10 priorities were decided, all five children's priorities were reflected in the final Top 10.

conclusionsWe have demonstrated that it is possible to successfully involve children directly in setting priorities for future research. Future priority setting exercises on topics relevant to children, should seek to include their views. The Children's Cancer Top 10 priorities reflect the voices of children and should inform the funding of future research.

Indexed as

CancerChildrenJames Lind AlliancePatient and public involvementPriority Setting PartnershipsResearch priority setting

Identifiers

PMID38037183
PMCPMC10688066

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.