ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2026
Secret or superpower? A narrative reflection on navigating dual identities as cancer survivors and cancer scientists.
Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeInternational research policy increasingly recognises lived experience as a form of expertise, encouraging meaningful involvement of lived experience expertise in research. However, such guidance often assumes a binary distinction between researchers and those with lived experience, offering little direction for individuals who embody both identities. This commentary examines the tensions, opportunities, and ethical considerations faced by adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors who also work as psycho-oncology researchers.
methodsDrawing on our positionality as survivor-scientists, we reflect on how disclosure of lived experience is shaped by academic culture, career stage, mentorship, and evolving norms regarding experiential expertise.
resultsOur narratives illustrate divergent pathways: one characterised by caution, driven by concerns about credibility and perceived bias, another enabled by mentorship that explicitly valued lived experience as an asset to rigorous research. Situating these reflections within existing literature on identity negotiation among AYA cancer survivors, we extend this work by examining how these challenges are intensified within academic and healthcare settings.
conclusionsWe call for a shift from binary thinking about research and lived experience expertise, toward a continuum of expertise. Clear guidance and cultural change are needed to enable the lived experience expertise of academic cancer researchers to enhance the inclusivity, relevance, and quality of cancer research. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This commentary highlights that lived experience of cancer should not undermine the credibility of academic cancer researchers. Rather, increased guidance and culture change can open pathways through which survivor-scientists can contribute their expertise safely and authentically.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42789211What 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.