SynthesisJNCI cancer spectrum2024
Meaningful consumer involvement in cancer care: a systematic review on co-design methods and processes.
Synthesis in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Exploring co-design: a systematic review of concepts, processes, models, and frameworks used in public health research.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2025Pooled it
- How has co-design been used to address vaccine hesitancy globally? A systematic review.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Pooled it
- Family-Centred Telehealth-Enhanced Dietary Counselling for the Treatment of Protein-Energy Malnutrition in Rural-Living Older Adults Transitioning From Rehabilitation to Home: A Pilot Controlled Trial.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026Trial
- Embedding Consumer-Led Research in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Nothing About Us Without Us: Principles for Lived Experience-Informed Psycho-Oncology Education and Training.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Lived experience leadership in cancer research: a scoping review of conceptual definitions, roles, responsibilities, and impacts.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Review
- Codesigning a pharmacist-led transition of care program in the emergency department: a qualitative participatory study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Article
- Co-designing primary and secondary outcome measures for an international phase 3 trial of surgical de-escalation in vulvar cancer through a consumer workshop.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Article
- The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer work after cancer global challenges and solutions white paper: key findings and recommendations.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Co-Developing User-Centred Nutrition Educational Resources to Integrate Nutrition Into Multiple Sclerosis Care: A Collaborative Approach With Healthcare Professionals and Healthcare Consumers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Assessing unstated assumptions of patient and public involvement in palliative care with story completion and typology analysis.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Co-designing strategies to enhance engagement in telehealth exercise classes among cancer survivors: a participatory study applying identity leadership theory and introducing the SIGN framework.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- Towards equitable cancer outcomes for rural and remote communities: reflections, lessons and recommendations.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Review
- Implementation strategies for evidence-based healthcare interventions in rural and remote settings: a scoping review.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Review
- Co-designing interventions to improve emergency department discharge communication with youths, parents and healthcare providers: a process evaluation.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Article
- Article
- Optimizing the impact of supportive cancer care digital health interventions: considerations for design, development, and evaluation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Review
- Patient-Centered Leadership and Co-Design of Services for Breast Cancer Program in Nicaragua.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAlthough the benefits of consumer involvement in research and health care initiatives are known, there is a need to optimize this for all people with cancer. This systematic review aimed to synthesize and evaluate the application of co-design in the oncology literature and develop recommendations to guide the application of optimal co-design processes and reporting in oncology research, practice, and policy.
methodsA systematic review of co-design studies in adults with cancer was conducted, searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases and included studies focused on 2 concepts, co-design and oncology.
resultsA total of 5652 titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in 66 eligible publications reporting on 51 unique studies. Four frameworks were applied to describe the co-design initiatives. Most co-design initiatives were designed for use in an outpatient setting (n = 38; 74%) and were predominantly digital resources (n = 14; 27%) or apps (n = 12; 23%). Most studies (n = 25; 49%) used a co-production approach to consumer engagement. Although some studies presented strong co-design methodology, most (n = 36; 70%) did not report the co-design approach, and 14% used no framework. Reporting was poor for the participant level of involvement, the frequency, and time commitment of co-design sessions. Consumer participation level was predominantly collaborate (n = 25; 49%).
conclusionsThere are opportunities to improve the application of co-design in oncology research. This review has generated recommendations to guide 1) methodology and frameworks, 2) recruitment and engagement of co-design participants, and 3) evaluation of the co-design process. These recommendations can help drive appropriate, meaningful, and equitable co-design, leading to better cancer research and care.
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.