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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
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
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.