ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026
Bridging Lived and Expert Experience: A Qualitative Study Exploring Lived-Experience Experts' and Researchers' Experiences of Public Engagement in Cancer Research.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPublic engagement has the potential to make research more impactful, and it has increased in recent years in cancer research. Yet, there is limited understanding of how this process of bringing lived experience into research works, and of what leads to tokenistic and non-tokenistic engagement. AIMS AND
objectivesTo explore public engagement in cancer research in the United States from the perspective of both lived-experience experts and researchers.
methodsA qualitative study consisting of interviews with 15 lived-experience experts engaged in cancer research and 15 cancer researchers. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsFindings are captured in four themes shared by both participant groups and mapped onto Jürgen Habermas's theory of communicative action, which helped explain the engagement process. First, public engagement was invaluable to research, but also personally and professionally. Second, underlying foundations and principles underpinned the non-tokenistic engagement process. Third, engagement led to the creation of a partnership between cancer researchers and lived-experience experts. Fourth, engagement was about creating and enriching culture within a research institution and in the community.
conclusionsThe study provided a better understanding of public engagement in cancer research. Habermas's communicative action theory offered an analytical framework to elicit the importance of mutual understanding in developing common ground between lived-experience experts and researchers. It highlighted that tensions between lived-experience experts and researchers, choosing not to act on feedback, and limited institutional support can lead to tokenistic engagement. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Four Community Advisory Board members contributed to this study from design through dissemination. They co-developed topic guides, co-analysed data, co-wrote this paper and are named as co-authors.
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.