Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40719570›Full record

ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center

Supporting Participant Engagement in Cancer Genomics Research in Rare Cancers: A Qualitative Study of Patients, Caregivers, and Advocates.

Vinayak Venkataraman, Lily Weber, Lauren Fisher, Andrew Khalaj, Eirian Siegal-Botti, Diane Diehl, Katherine A Janeway, Suzanne George, Jennifer W Mack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. 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. 'A No-Brainer, but Not a Simple Decision': A Qualitative Study of Patient Experiences of Tissue Donation for Research in Rare Craniospinal Tumour Pathways.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

9 authors.

Vinayak VenkataramanDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0941-2354
Lily WeberMcGraw/Patterson Center for Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Lauren FisherMcGraw/Patterson Center for Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Andrew KhalajMcGraw/Patterson Center for Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Eirian Siegal-BottiCount Me In, The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Boston, MA, USA.
Diane DiehlCount Me In, The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0009-0001-8965-8874
Katherine A JanewayHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Suzanne GeorgeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Jennifer W MackMcGraw/Patterson Center for Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Participant Engagement UnitU2CCA252974 · NCI · BROAD INSTITUTE, INC. · PI GEORGE, SUZANNE, JANEWAY, KATHERINE A · 2020 to 2025
$16.6M
NCI NIH HHS U2C CA252974
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to identify patterns and themes that support participant engagement in patient-partnered cancer genomics research.MethodsThe Osteosarcoma (OS) and Leiomyosarcoma (LMS) Projects of Count Me In allow any patient with OS and LMS in the US and Canada to contribute their health information, tumor samples, and lived experience to an aggregated, public research database. We conducted in-depth interviews with research partners, including patients, caregivers, and advocates, who were purposefully sampled to ensure inclusion of racial and ethnic minorities, those with less than college education, and adolescents (age 12-17). Coding and analysis were conducted by the research team using NVivo to identify themes that support engagement.ResultsTen patients, ten caregivers, and six advocates were interviewed. Seven themes were identified that support participant engagement: (a) motivation, (b) respect, (c) trust, (d) inclusivity, (e) relationship, (f) engagement, and (g) empowerment. Research partners were motivated to serve others, play a part in scientific discovery, and play a role in a novel initiative. Respect was supported through timeliness in communication or follow-up, an appropriate amount of time and information requested, and an acknowledgement that illness may prevent participation. Trust was developed through ensuring adequate privacy/confidentiality safeguards and demonstrating transparency. Inclusivity was demonstrated through showcasing broad representation and mitigating technical barriers. Research partners wanted to feel a relationship with, and engaged and empowered by, researchers. Adolescents reported their parents were more engaged than they were.ConclusionsResearch partners, including patients, caregivers, and advocates, have a strong desire to engage with researchers. We identified seven themes to support engagement. Researchers can optimize their communication and operations to support participant engagement in cancer genomics research.

Indexed as

CaregiversGenomicsNeoplasmsPatient ParticipationRare DiseasesAdolescentAdultChildFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOsteosarcomaQualitative Researchadolescent and young adultbone sarcomacancer genomics researchsoft tissue sarcoma

Identifiers

PMID40719570
PMCPMC12304653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.