Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39186739›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

From many voices, one question: Community co-design of a population-based qualitative cancer research study.

Susannah K Ayre, Elizabeth A Johnston, Xanthia E Bourdaniotis, Leah Zajdlewicz, Vanessa L Beesley, Jason D Pole, Aaron Hansen, Harry Gasper, Danica Cossio, Gemma Lock and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. 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. Interprofessional Perspectives on Communication Quality in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Qualitative Study.Advances in neonatal care : official journal of the National Association of Neonatal Nurses · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Susannah K AyreCancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6683-0328
Elizabeth A JohnstonCancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9486-5704
Xanthia E BourdaniotisCancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0009-0003-7487-259X
Leah ZajdlewiczCancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Vanessa L BeesleyPsychedelic Medicine and Supportive Care Lab, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Jason D PoleCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Aaron HansenIcon Cancer Centre, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Harry GasperToowoomba Base Hospital, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0290-5762
Danica CossioCancer Alliance Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Gemma LockCancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Belinda C GoodwinCancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study formed the development stage of a population-based survey aiming to: (i) understand the needs and experiences of people affected by cancer in Queensland, Australia and (ii) recruit a pool of participants for ongoing cancer survivorship research. The current study aimed to co-design and test a single qualitative survey question and study invitation materials to maximise acceptability of, and participation in, the survey and future research.

methodsFifty-two community members, including cancer survivors and caregivers, participated across 15 co-design workshops and 20 pretest interviews. During workshops, participants generated and refined ideas for an open-ended survey question and provided feedback on a study invitation letter. The use of a single, open-ended question aims to minimise participant burden while collecting rich information about needs and experiences. The research team then shortlisted the question ideas and revised study invitation materials based on workshop feedback. Next, using interviews, community members were asked to respond to a shortlisted question to test its interpretability and relevance and to review revised invitation materials. Content analysis of participant feedback was used to identify principles for designing study materials.

resultsPrinciples for designing qualitative survey questions were identified from participant feedback, including define the question timeframe and scope; provide reassurance that responses are valid and valued; and use simple wording. Principles for designing study invitation materials were also identified, including communicate empathy and sensitivity; facilitate reciprocal benefit; and include a 'human element'. The qualitative survey question and study invitation materials created using these principles were considered relevant and acceptable for use in a population-based survey.

conclusionsThrough community consultation and co-design, this study identified principles for designing qualitative data collection and invitation materials for use in cancer survivorship research. These principles can be applied by other researchers to develop study materials that are sensitive to the needs and preferences of community members.

Indexed as

Community-Based Participatory ResearchNeoplasmsResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultCancer SurvivorsCaregiversFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleQualitative ResearchQueensland

Identifiers

PMID39186739
PMCPMC11346942

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.