ArticleThe patient2026
The Professional-Volunteer Paradox: Transforming Lived Experience into a Sense of Purpose in Dutch Oncology Patient Advocacy.
Article in The patient, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveTransforming lived experience into a sense of purpose through patient advocacy in oncology research and policy development is increasingly demanded. However, the long-term sustainability of patient advocates - who formally operate as unpaid volunteers - remains under-researched. This study explores the motivational drivers and structural hurdles characterising the field of Dutch oncology patient advocacy to identify the prerequisites for a sustainable patient voice in oncology research and policy development.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative study among 16 Dutch oncology patient advocates using semi-structured interviews based on the self-determination theory and the Job-Demands-Resources model. Data were analysed through thematic analysis, to understand participant's experiences, motivations and the structural dynamics of their roles.
resultsParticipants fulfil three primary advocacy roles: strategic policy representation, knowledge translation and organisational support. Engagement is driven by an intrinsic motivation to transform lived experience into experiential expertise, supported by the fulfilment of the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. However, this drive is challenged by significant job demands, including emotional burden, responsibility burden, high workload and organisational demands, and health constraints. While advocates provide mandatory input for research funding, they navigate a landscape of inconsistent financial compensation and varying levels of professional appreciation.
conclusionsThe findings of this study reveal a "professional-volunteer paradox": a systematic tension that challenges the sustainability of the patient voice in oncology research and policy development. To move from symbolic participation toward empowered partnership, a shift in perspective is required. This necessitates institutionalising professional support, fostering role clarity, and ensuring financial and structural equity. By acknowledging advocates as professional experts whose experiential authority is essential, healthcare systems can secure a robust and sustainable role for the patient advocate voice in the future of oncology research and policy development.
Identifiers
42702688What 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.