ReviewBMJ open2024
Patient organisations' views, motivations and experiences on patient involvement in cancer research: a pilot study in Portugal.
Review in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient experience and expectations with collaborative management between pharmacies and primary care: a qualitative study of a trial (USFarmácia) exit focus group.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- The People's Review protocol: planning an innovative study powered by the public.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo characterise Portuguese cancer-related patient organisations and analyse their views, motivations and experiences on patient involvement in cancer research.
designA multistakeholder group, comprising patient representatives and researchers, codesigned a questionnaire after a literature review, online sessions and collaborative mind maps. In May 2021, a survey was conducted among representatives of Portuguese cancer-related patient organisations, focusing on four dimensions: experience in cancer research; perception of its outcomes; motivations and expectations on patient involvement in research; and organisation characteristics.
participantsTwenty-seven representatives from Portuguese cancer-related patient organisations responded to the questionnaire, corresponding to a 64% response rate.
resultsAmong the surveyed organisations, 26% have participated in clinical studies. Their involvement occurred in few stages of the research process and, mostly, with low levels of engagement. They showed 'great interest' in participating in most research steps, although this is not reflected in a high perception of influence over these same steps. More than half claimed to have contributed to the increase in patient recruitment and to a better understanding of informed consent by patients involved. Ensuring that research results are more aligned with the true needs of patients is the greatest motivation. Also, our results suggest that the organisation's number of employees and its integration into a European/International network play a relevant role in patient involvement in research.
conclusionsThis study provides the first in-depth characterisation of Portuguese cancer-related patient organisations and their views, motivations and experiences on patient involvement in cancer research. Most importantly, this study revealed that most of these organisations show great interest in being involved in different R&D stages to ensure that research results are aligned with patients' needs. Their motivation should be turned into greater and more meaningful involvement in practice, so that the cancer community can benefit from the outcomes of truly patient-centred research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.