Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40312742›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025

Stronger together; evaluating consumers and researchers working in partnership.

Grace Gard, Joanna Oakley, Kelsey Serena, Michael Harold, Katya Gray, Helen Anderson, Judi Byrne, Jo Cockwill, Jim Cormack, Graeme Down and 2 more

Abstract readLetter
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Grace GardPersonalised Oncology Division, WEHI, Melbourne, Australia. grace.gard@mh.org.au.
Joanna OakleyPersonalised Oncology Division, WEHI, Melbourne, Australia.
Kelsey SerenaPersonalised Oncology Division, WEHI, Melbourne, Australia.
Michael HaroldPersonalised Oncology Division, WEHI, Melbourne, Australia.
Katya GrayWEHI Consumer Program, Melbourne, Australia.
Helen AndersonWEHI Consumer Program, Melbourne, Australia.
Judi ByrneWEHI Consumer Program, Melbourne, Australia.
Jo CockwillWEHI Consumer Program, Melbourne, Australia.
Jim CormackWEHI Consumer Program, Melbourne, Australia.
Graeme DownWEHI Consumer Program, Melbourne, Australia.
George KiossoglouWEHI Consumer Program, Melbourne, Australia.
Peter GibbsPersonalised Oncology Division, WEHI, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

VCCC Alliance Program 5 Value-based Healthcare
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsumer engagement in medical research should be early, ongoing, and meaningful, to improve patient-centred research design and outcomes. Evaluating the impact of consumer input builds the evidence base needed to sustain and improve ongoing involvement efforts. Multiple evaluation tools are available. Here we explore the landscape of evaluation tools and apply the Australian Clinical Trials Alliance (ACTA) tool to evaluate the impact and process of consumer involvement in a recently completed project.

methodsThe ACTA evaluation tool was administered to all consumers and research team members in the "RECAP" study. The RECAP study is co-designed as a single-arm trial that implemented registry-generated personalised care plans for patients with newly diagnosed rectal cancer. The ACTA evaluation tool responses underwent thematic analysis, and the research and consumer group assessed the utility of the tool.

resultsThe ACTA evaluation tool was completed by the entire team, including six consumers and four researchers. Thematic analysis highlighted inclusivity, workload, communication and remuneration as key considerations in the process of consumer involvement. Consumer impact was measured in terms of seven domains of critical research outcomes. Consumer involvement in the RECAP project was identified to be meaningful, respectful, inclusive, and impactful. The evaluation tool was considered appropriate by all respondents, who identified the ease of use, low burden and ability to address both the consumer impact and experience as positive factors. Identified areas for development included the repetitiveness and lack of specify of some questions, and the uncertainty about the desired length of response.

conclusionThe ACTA evaluation tool was successfully administered to a team of consumers and researchers engaged in a recently completed trial with positive assessment of tool utility.

Indexed as

Cancer researchCo-designConsumer engagementEvaluationPatient and public involvement

Identifiers

PMID40312742
PMCPMC12044805

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.