Cargando…

Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research emphasizes the importance of doing research with, rather than for people with lived health/illness experience(s). The purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the breadth and depth of scientific literature on PPI in cancer resear...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Colomer‐Lahiguera, Sara, Steimer, Matthieu, Ellis, Ursula, Eicher, Manuela, Tompson, Margaret, Corbière, Tourane, Haase, Kristen R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10417078/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37329180
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.6200
_version_ 1785087935427641344
author Colomer‐Lahiguera, Sara
Steimer, Matthieu
Ellis, Ursula
Eicher, Manuela
Tompson, Margaret
Corbière, Tourane
Haase, Kristen R.
author_facet Colomer‐Lahiguera, Sara
Steimer, Matthieu
Ellis, Ursula
Eicher, Manuela
Tompson, Margaret
Corbière, Tourane
Haase, Kristen R.
author_sort Colomer‐Lahiguera, Sara
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research emphasizes the importance of doing research with, rather than for people with lived health/illness experience(s). The purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the breadth and depth of scientific literature on PPI in cancer research and to identify how is PPI applied and reported in cancer research. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo up to March 2022. All titles/abstracts and full‐text results were screened by two reviewers. Data were analyzed and are presented in both narrative and tabular format. RESULTS: We screened 22,009 titles/abstract, reviewed 375 full‐text articles, of which 101 studies were included in this review. 66 papers applied PPI; 35 used co‐design methodologies. PPI in cancer research in published research has increased steadily since 2015 and often includes those with a past diagnosis of cancer or relatives/informal caregivers. The most common applied methods were workshops or interviews. PPI was generally used at the level of consultation/advisor and occurred mainly in early stages of research. Costs related to PPI were mentioned in 25 papers and four papers described training provided for PPI. CONCLUSIONS: Results of our review demonstrate the nature and extent of PPI expansion in cancer research. Researchers and research organizations entering the fray of PPI should consider planning and reporting elements such as the stage, level, and role type of PPI, as well as methods and strategies put in place to assure diversity. Furthermore, a thorough evaluation of whether all these elements meet the stated PPI purpose will help to grasp its impact on research outcomes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patients participated in the stakeholder consultation as part of the scoping review methodology, contributed to the discussion on refining the results, and critically reviewed the manuscript. Both are co‐authors of this manuscript.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10417078
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104170782023-08-12 Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review Colomer‐Lahiguera, Sara Steimer, Matthieu Ellis, Ursula Eicher, Manuela Tompson, Margaret Corbière, Tourane Haase, Kristen R. Cancer Med REVIEW INTRODUCTION: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research emphasizes the importance of doing research with, rather than for people with lived health/illness experience(s). The purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the breadth and depth of scientific literature on PPI in cancer research and to identify how is PPI applied and reported in cancer research. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo up to March 2022. All titles/abstracts and full‐text results were screened by two reviewers. Data were analyzed and are presented in both narrative and tabular format. RESULTS: We screened 22,009 titles/abstract, reviewed 375 full‐text articles, of which 101 studies were included in this review. 66 papers applied PPI; 35 used co‐design methodologies. PPI in cancer research in published research has increased steadily since 2015 and often includes those with a past diagnosis of cancer or relatives/informal caregivers. The most common applied methods were workshops or interviews. PPI was generally used at the level of consultation/advisor and occurred mainly in early stages of research. Costs related to PPI were mentioned in 25 papers and four papers described training provided for PPI. CONCLUSIONS: Results of our review demonstrate the nature and extent of PPI expansion in cancer research. Researchers and research organizations entering the fray of PPI should consider planning and reporting elements such as the stage, level, and role type of PPI, as well as methods and strategies put in place to assure diversity. Furthermore, a thorough evaluation of whether all these elements meet the stated PPI purpose will help to grasp its impact on research outcomes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patients participated in the stakeholder consultation as part of the scoping review methodology, contributed to the discussion on refining the results, and critically reviewed the manuscript. Both are co‐authors of this manuscript. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-06-16 /pmc/articles/PMC10417078/ /pubmed/37329180 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.6200 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle REVIEW
Colomer‐Lahiguera, Sara
Steimer, Matthieu
Ellis, Ursula
Eicher, Manuela
Tompson, Margaret
Corbière, Tourane
Haase, Kristen R.
Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review
title Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review
title_full Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review
title_fullStr Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review
title_short Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review
title_sort patient and public involvement in cancer research: a scoping review
topic REVIEW
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10417078/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37329180
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.6200
work_keys_str_mv AT colomerlahiguerasara patientandpublicinvolvementincancerresearchascopingreview
AT steimermatthieu patientandpublicinvolvementincancerresearchascopingreview
AT ellisursula patientandpublicinvolvementincancerresearchascopingreview
AT eichermanuela patientandpublicinvolvementincancerresearchascopingreview
AT tompsonmargaret patientandpublicinvolvementincancerresearchascopingreview
AT corbieretourane patientandpublicinvolvementincancerresearchascopingreview
AT haasekristenr patientandpublicinvolvementincancerresearchascopingreview