Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40165274›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025

Patient and public involvement in research: a survey on experience, opinions and training needs of gynecologic oncologists in two collaborative groups in Italy.

Cinzia Colombo, Pasquale Paletta, Antonella Savarese, Sandro Pignata, Paola Mosconi, Elena Biagioli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Bridging Lived and Expert Experience: A Qualitative Study Exploring Lived-Experience Experts' and Researchers' Experiences of Public Engagement in Cancer Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    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

6 authors.

Cinzia ColomboLaboratory of Medical Research on Consumer Involvement, Department of Medical Epidemiology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Milan, Italy. cinzia.colombo@marionegri.it.
Pasquale PalettaLaboratory of Medical Research on Consumer Involvement, Department of Medical Epidemiology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Antonella SavareseIstituto Nazionale Tumori Regina Elena - IRCCS Rome, Rome, Italy.
Sandro PignataDepartment of Urology and Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples, Italy.
Paola Mosconi *Laboratory of Medical Research on Consumer Involvement, Department of Medical Epidemiology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Elena Biagioli *Laboratory of Methodology for Clinical Research, Clinical Oncology Department, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe involvement of people with experience of disease, caregivers, and patient representatives as partners in research is growing, but varies by country and research field. This survey aimed to investigate opinions, experience and training needs on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) of clinicians and nurses from two Italian collaborative groups in gynecologic oncology research.

methodsThis cross-sectional, observational study was conducted through an online self-administered questionnaire addressed to health professionals participating in the Mario Negri Gynecologic Oncology (MaNGO), and the Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer and gynecologic malignancies (MITO) groups, which comprise Italian reference centres for gynecologic oncology research.

resultsOut of 108 respondents (13.7% response rate), half knew the term PPI (50.9%), slightly more (60.2%) had PPI experience, and the majority (88.9%) were interested in a training course. Most respondents thought PPI was morally/ethically the right thing to do (63.9%). The main benefits considered were improving patient recruitment and retention in a study (62.9%), and maintaining a connection to the real world (60%). The main negative effects were identifying problems not relevant to clinical research (34.2% of respondents), and involving people who are not representative of the target population (29.6% of respondents). One third thought PPI had no negative effects. The barriers most frequently selected were lack of time, resources and funding (59.2%), and difficulty in expressing scientific terms in lay language (50%). The main requirements were dedicated resources, in terms of services and staff (68.5%), training for researchers (58.3%) and training for public and patient partners (37%).

conclusionsThis survey provides an insight on PPI in gynecologic oncology in Italy showing that some clinicians in the field of gynecologic oncology are familiar with the term PPI and have had experience with it, but most need and ask for training. Providing a picture of the opinions, experiences and needs of health professionals regarding PPI is a starting point for planning actions to implement it in specific settings. Collaborative groups-such as MaNGO and MITO-can share organizational and professional resources to boost PPI and foster a research culture in this direction.

Indexed as

Cross-sectional studyGynecologic oncologyHealth care professionalsParticipatory researchPatient and public involvementPPISurveyTraining

Identifiers

PMID40165274
PMCPMC11959993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.