ArticleJMIR research protocols2026
Embedding Patient and Public Engagement in a Cancer Project: Protocol for a Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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 · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient and public engagement in research can enhance its quality, ensure the relevance of findings to the public, and make the process more inclusive and democratic. Ensuring meaningful engagement can be challenging and requires careful preparation. Objective: This paper presents an approach for a public engagement process in a qualitative study, describing how lived experience experts act as coresearchers from the design of the study through to analysis and dissemination. Methods: A community advisory board (CAB) comprising 4 lived experience experts will serve as coresearchers in the qualitative study. The CAB's role spans all stages of this qualitative research. Their engagement will consist of approximately monthly meetings focusing on different research stages as the research team progresses through the study. The meetings will be designed by PT with input from the CAB to shape the discussion focus and identify relevant training needs. The lived experience experts, alongside PT, will jointly evaluate the CAB activities through regular reflective discussions and map these onto the established public engagement evaluation framework. Results: Findings from the CAB evaluation will provide insights into how meaningful the process was for both lived experience experts and the research team by capturing how lived experience experts were involved, whether their voices were heard, whether their feedback led to change, and who controlled the agenda. The study received funding in 2025, and all 4 members of the CAB were recruited in July and August 2025. In September, only the first stage was underway. As this paper reports an approach to public engagement, no findings are available at this point. The CAB evaluation is expected to take place at the end of the research project in mid-2026. Conclusions: The findings will offer a new understanding of how to engage lived experience experts, consequently providing guidance for other researchers to plan realistic engagement activities and genuinely include more members of the public with lived experience in qualitative research.
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.