Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42712114›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026

Embedding Consumer-Led Research in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation.

Lucy Boyd, Claire Nightingale, Brad Astbury, Natalie Diepenhorst, Leslie Leckie, Michelle Barrett, Joanne M Britto, Simonne Neil, Tessa Saunders

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

9 authors.

Lucy BoydEvaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8287-6978
Claire NightingaleEvaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4103-6240
Brad AstburyEvaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6832-4472
Natalie DiepenhorstVictorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5875-7207
Leslie LeckieVictorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Michelle BarrettVictorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3703-5097
Joanne M BrittoVictorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6071-3304
Simonne NeilVictorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6671-8637
Tessa SaundersEvaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3702-9029

Funding

Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAs consumer involvement becomes increasingly recognised as an important part of health and medical research, new ways to involve consumers are actively being explored. This evaluation aimed to investigate the experience of consumers and other stakeholders involved in two pilot consumer-led research projects within a comprehensive cancer alliance.

methodsThe evaluation consisted of program document review, an online survey and individual interviews to explore the experience of a range of stakeholders. Analysis was via a convergent mixed methods approach.

resultsOverall, 12 consumer participants and 11 other non-consumer stakeholder participants took part in the evaluation. An in-depth narrative of participants' experiences was developed, from which five key components of effective consumer-led research were identified: (1) Organisational commitment to consumer involvement at all levels, (2) appropriate time and resources, (3) training and education, (4) clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and (5) an ecosystem that values individuals and creates a cohesive group dynamic. While the two pilot projects shared similarities, their iterative and sequential nature enabled learnings from the first to be applied in real time to the second. Overall, the experience of the programs was positive, with both consumers and other stakeholders rating the pilots as successful and stating they were highly likely to recommend the program to others.

conclusionThis evaluation illustrated that the implementation of a framework for consumer-led research pilot projects was perceived positively and enhanced consumer leadership in the research process. Additionally, it identified areas where power and decision-making could be more evenly shared, thereby enhancing consumer leadership in the research process. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with lived experience of cancer (including service users and caregivers) were involved in this evaluation in two ways. First, two consumers were part of the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance evaluation team (L.L. and N.D.) and helped design the evaluation plan and data collection tools and reviewed findings and draft reports. N.D. contributed to the manuscript write-up. Second, consumers who were part of the two pilot projects and had roles in consumer-led research projects (n = 17) were invited to participate in the evaluation activities (online survey and/or interview) to share their experience. These consumers were also invited to an online feedback session with the evaluation team to sense-check and confirm the evaluation findings prior to finalisation.

Indexed as

Cancer Care FacilitiesCommunity ParticipationAdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPilot ProjectsProgram EvaluationSurveys and Questionnairescancer researchconsumerconsumer‐ledevaluationlived experience leadershippatient and public involvementresearch prioritisation

Identifiers

PMID42712114
PMCPMC13554987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.