Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review

Promoting Patient Safety Through Patient Engagement at the Organisational Level: A Delphi-Based Needs Assessment Among Patient and Family Advisory Councils

BACKGROUND

Patient and family advisory councils (PFACs) are increasingly recognised as a promising approach for improving patient safety (PS) through patient engagement (PE) at the organisational level. However, PFAC stakeholders often lack the necessary knowledge and competence to engage effectively in PS-related issues with healthcare organisations. Moreover, evidence on specific needs for knowledge and competence improvement remains limited, hindering the development of future interventions.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed (a) to identify needs for PS-related competency and knowledge improvement among PFAC stakeholders and (b) to assess current and desired levels of PFAC engagement, roles and factors influencing PFACs' work.

DESIGN

We established an exploratory mixed-methods design with a modified, two-round Delphi approach. We first used qualitative content analysis to analyse interview data (Round 1) and then consolidated statements for a quantitative questionnaire (Round 2). Responses were analysed descriptively and for consensus (criterion: 85% agreement). Mixed-methods analysis was conducted sequentially and convergently.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

PFAC stakeholders are affiliated with German healthcare organisations, including patient representatives and professionals from healthcare organisations. MAIN VARIABLE AND OUTCOME STUDIED: (a) Needs for competency improvement on PS and communication, self-assessed knowledge and preferred training formats and (b) PFAC engagement levels, roles and factors influencing PFACs' work.

RESULTS

Across 6 different oncology-focused PFACs from German university hospitals, 19 stakeholders participated across both rounds. Seventeen needs for competency improvement in PS and communication were identified. After establishing consensus, 10 distinct domains of need were agreed upon (e.g., PS fundamentals, legal basis for PE and respectful communication). While PFAC engagement in PS was inconsistent, participants expressed a strong desire for further involvement. Key implementation factors included limited access to organisational processes, lack of resources and unequal conditions between research- and care-oriented councils.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study highlights the need for targeted training and structural support to strengthen PFACs' role in PS. Competency improvement and role clarity were deemed essential for effective collaboration. Enhancing PFAC engagement in PS requires tailored educational programmes, transparent structures and institutional support. This study provides an empirical basis for interventions to improve PE in PS at the organisational level.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

A patient representative was actively involved throughout the research process, contributing to the development of study materials and providing independent feedback on interview guides and questionnaires. Her input helped to shape the materials, improve their accessibility to lay audiences and ensure the inclusion of patient-relevant issues. The research team discussed her feedback in detail and revised study materials accordingly. Beyond the content presented in this manuscript, she contributed to shaping a subsequent intervention that emerged from the study's needs assessment, which was designed as a participatory approach to incorporate patient and stakeholder perspectives from the outset. In addition, she and participating stakeholders of the patient advisory councils are committed to disseminating project findings and developing recommendations to help translate research into practice from a patient perspective.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was pre-registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00034733).

Patient and Public Involvement in Malnutrition Disorders Health Research: A Methodological Systematic Review Protocol

Background/Objectives: Older adults are particularly susceptible to undernutrition and conditions that can aggravate it, such as frailty and conditions associated with swallowing difficulties or dysphagia. To address these challenges, it is important to consider the perspectives of older adults and their caregivers, especially those with conditions such as frailty or cognitive impairment, as they can provide valuable insights on supporting nutrition in these vulnerable populations. This participatory approach requires structures formed by scientific research committees working together with other stakeholders, involving various actors at all stages of the research process. The aim of this study is to analyze the methodology for involving patients aged 65 and older with malnutrition or at risk of malnutrition as co-investigators in research. Methods: This protocol has been developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-P) checklist. A literature search will be carried out in the following electronic databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Through the COVIDENCE program, the research team will independently review the different screening phases of the identified studies for possible inclusion or exclusion. Expected Results: This systematic review will provide up-to-date evidence on the use of non-scientific actors at different stages of research. The main limitation stems from the use of non-scientific agents in a topic as specific as adults with or at risk of undernutrition, which may make it difficult to extrapolate the results to other settings. The registration number in PROSPERO is CRD42024444374.

Patient and public involvement in research: a survey on experience, opinions and training needs of gynecologic oncologists in two collaborative groups in Italy

BACKGROUND

The involvement of people with experience of disease, caregivers, and patient representatives as partners in research is growing, but varies by country and research field. This survey aimed to investigate opinions, experience and training needs on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) of clinicians and nurses from two Italian collaborative groups in gynecologic oncology research.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, observational study was conducted through an online self-administered questionnaire addressed to health professionals participating in the Mario Negri Gynecologic Oncology (MaNGO), and the Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer and gynecologic malignancies (MITO) groups, which comprise Italian reference centres for gynecologic oncology research.

RESULTS

Out of 108 respondents (13.7% response rate), half knew the term PPI (50.9%), slightly more (60.2%) had PPI experience, and the majority (88.9%) were interested in a training course. Most respondents thought PPI was morally/ethically the right thing to do (63.9%). The main benefits considered were improving patient recruitment and retention in a study (62.9%), and maintaining a connection to the real world (60%). The main negative effects were identifying problems not relevant to clinical research (34.2% of respondents), and involving people who are not representative of the target population (29.6% of respondents). One third thought PPI had no negative effects. The barriers most frequently selected were lack of time, resources and funding (59.2%), and difficulty in expressing scientific terms in lay language (50%). The main requirements were dedicated resources, in terms of services and staff (68.5%), training for researchers (58.3%) and training for public and patient partners (37%).

CONCLUSIONS

This survey provides an insight on PPI in gynecologic oncology in Italy showing that some clinicians in the field of gynecologic oncology are familiar with the term PPI and have had experience with it, but most need and ask for training. Providing a picture of the opinions, experiences and needs of health professionals regarding PPI is a starting point for planning actions to implement it in specific settings. Collaborative groups-such as MaNGO and MITO-can share organizational and professional resources to boost PPI and foster a research culture in this direction.

Feasibility, safety, and adherence of home-based exercise interventions in people diagnosed with cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

This systematic review aims to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and adherence of home-based exercise interventions in people diagnosed with cancer. The primary research question is: Are home-based exercise interventions safe and feasible for people diagnosed with cancer?

METHODS

A comprehensive search of databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was conducted in January 2025, focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that involved home-based exercise interventions people diagnosed with cancer. Studies were included if they reported on safety, feasibility, and health-related outcomes. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale was used to assess study quality and risk of bias. Adverse events were categorized by severity, and feasibility which was determined based on recruitment, withdrawal, and adherence rates.

RESULTS

From 127 eligible studies involving 10,562 participants, the review found that home-based exercise interventions are generally safe, with less than 3.2% of participants experiencing exercise-related adverse events, most of which were minor. Feasibility was supported by an average recruitment rate of 50.1%, which was calculated as the proportion of eligible participants who consented to participate across the included studies. Additionally, the review found a withdrawal rate of 13.7%, and an adherence rate of 76.2%. However, significant variability in these rates were observed across the studies, highlighting the challenges in maintaining participant engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

Home-based exercise interventions are feasible and safe for people diagnosed with cancer, with minor adverse events being the most common. However, there is a need for standardized protocols in reporting adverse events and better strategies to improve recruitment and adherence.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

These findings support the integration of home-based exercise into standard cancer care, offering a practical and safe option for enhancing the health and well-being of cancer survivors. However, the successful implementation of these programs may require additional support from exercise professionals within primary care or community settings to ensure appropriate guidance and adherence. Personalized exercise programs, developed by qualified exercise professionals such as physiotherapists or clinical exercise physiologists, and improved reporting standards are essential to optimizing these interventions.

Translation of PET radiotracers for cancer imaging: recommendations from the National Cancer Imaging Translational Accelerator (NCITA) consensus meeting

BACKGROUND

The clinical translation of positron emission tomography (PET) radiotracers for cancer management presents complex challenges. We have developed consensus-based recommendations for preclinical and clinical assessment of novel and established radiotracers, applied to image different cancer types, to improve the standardisation of translational methodologies and accelerate clinical implementation.

METHODS

A consensus process was developed using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) to gather insights from a multidisciplinary panel of 38 key stakeholders on the appropriateness of preclinical and clinical methodologies and stakeholder engagement for PET radiotracer translation. Panellists independently completed a consensus survey of 57 questions, rating each on a 9-point Likert scale. Subsequently, panellists attended a consensus meeting to discuss survey outcomes and readjust scores independently if desired. Survey items with median scores ≥ 7 were considered 'required/appropriate', ≤ 3 'not required/inappropriate', and 4-6 indicated 'uncertainty remained'. Consensus was determined as ~ 70% participant agreement on whether the item was 'required/appropriate' or 'not required/not appropriate'.

RESULTS

Consensus was achieved for 38 of 57 (67%) survey questions related to preclinical and clinical methodologies, and stakeholder engagement. For evaluating established radiotracers in new cancer types, in vitro and preclinical studies were considered unnecessary, clinical pharmacokinetic studies were considered appropriate, and clinical dosimetry and biodistribution studies were considered unnecessary, if sufficient previous data existed. There was 'agreement without consensus' that clinical repeatability and reproducibility studies are required while 'uncertainty remained' regarding the need for comparison studies. For novel radiotracers, in vitro and preclinical studies, such as dosimetry and/or biodistribution studies and tumour histological assessment were considered appropriate, as well as comprehensive clinical validation. Conversely, preclinical reproducibility studies were considered unnecessary and 'uncertainties remained' regarding preclinical pharmacokinetic and repeatability evaluation. Other consensus areas included standardisation of clinical study protocols, streamlined regulatory frameworks and patient and public involvement. While a centralised UK clinical imaging research infrastructure and open access federated data repository were considered necessary, there was 'agreement without consensus' regarding the requirement for a centralised UK preclinical imaging infrastructure.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide consensus-based recommendations, emphasising streamlined methodologies and regulatory frameworks, together with active stakeholder engagement, for improving PET radiotracer standardisation, reproducibility and clinical implementation in oncology.

Advancing Patient Advocacy in Mycology: Cultivating Collaboration in Education, Research, and Policy

In the healthcare landscape, diseases such as cancer and HIV/AIDS have benefited from the patient's perspective. For fungal diseases, the patient voice remains absent in critical areas such as policy formulation, funding decisions, and research priorities. Patients affected by fungal disease, along with their caregivers and advocacy groups, possess invaluable insights into the challenges and unmet needs they face. By elevating their voices and experiences, policymakers, funding agencies, and researchers can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of fungal disease and the urgency of addressing them. This paper addresses the pressing need for a coordinated effort to elevate the patient voice in advocating for improved policies, increased funding, and enhanced research initiatives regarding fungal disease.

Prioritising Key Concepts for informed health choices in cancer: An evidence-based online educational programme

Objective

The overabundance of health misinformation has undermined people's capacity to make evidence-based, informed choices about their health. Using the Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts (KCs), we are developing a two-stage education programme, Informed Health Choices-Cancer (IHC-C), to provide those impacted by cancer with the knowledge and skills necessary to think critically about the reliability of health information and claims and make well-informed choices. Stage 1 seeks to prioritise the most relevant Key Concepts.

Methods

A project group and a patient and carer participation group completed a two-round prioritisation process. The process involved disseminating pre-reading materials, training sessions, and a structured judgement form to evaluate concepts for inclusion. Data from each round were analysed to reach a consensus on the concepts to include.

Results

Fourteen participants were recruited and completed the first-round prioritisation. Fifteen participants undertook the second-round prioritisation. Nine Key Concepts were selected for the programme across five training sessions and two consensus meetings.

Conclusion

The prioritised concepts identified represent the most pertinent aspects of cancer-related information for those impacted by the disease. By incorporating these concepts into educational materials and communication strategies, healthcare providers and organisations can potentially help cancer patients, survivors, and their loved ones to recognise and combat cancer-related misinformation more effectively.

Innovation

This study introduces a participatory prioritisation process, which integrates the expertise of healthcare professionals with the insights of patients and carers, thereby enhancing the programme's relevance and applicability.

Adapting and testing an eLearning resource for professionals to support families when a significant caregiver for children is dying with cancer

PURPOSE

Health and social care professionals (professionals) often lack knowledge, skills and confidence to support adults at end of life with significant caregiving responsibilities for children, < 18. A recent systematic review highlighted a dearth of educational interventions (n = 2) to equip professionals to provide supportive care to families when a parent has cancer. Addressing an evident gap in education, this paper details the adaption and optimisation of a face-to-face educational intervention to an accessible eLearning resource.

METHODS

Guided by the 'Person-based Approach', a theory-driven and evidence-based face-to-face educational intervention was adapted and optimised as an eLearning resource. This incorporated current evidence, alongside insights from an expert group, learning technologists and research team, leading to the design of an eLearning prototype. This was optimised for acceptability and usability using think-aloud interviews with end-users (n = 13) and patient and public involvement (n = 4).

RESULTS

An iterative adaption and optimisation process enabled implementation of navigational improvements, changes to enhance clarity on language and appropriateness of images and interactive components. During optimisation, positive feedback was reported; especially regarding the 'look and feel' and on the educational videos and reflective exercises embedded throughout the eLearning resource.

CONCLUSION

The systematic adaption and optimisation of this novel eLearning resource has aimed to promote relevance, appropriateness, and applicability of an accessible evidence-based and theory-driven training resource for professionals. It has the potential to promote family-centred supportive end of life cancer care, which ultimately can promote better bereavement outcomes. An evaluation of the intervention is required to explore impact on practice.

Whose Responsibility Is It? Implementing Patient-Prioritized Healthcare System Change in Oncology

This brief commentary describes the reflections on a fundamental question by the Public Interest Group on Cancer Research, a successful academic-community partnership focused on cancer research, education, public engagement, and advocacy in Canada's Eastern province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Our Group has achieved some success in a short time with very limited funding. It has successfully created public spaces for conversations about cancer care and priorities for research and regularly advocated for health service change prioritized by input from patients and family members. However, we remain challenged in our understanding of how to truly implement change within oncology care contexts that is informed by patients and families affected by cancer. In this short reflection, we hope to raise awareness of this important issue and question whose responsibility it is to work with patients and families and follow through on prioritized healthcare issues and services. We suggest this may be a matter of integrated knowledge translation and a better understanding of where patients and families fit in this space. We hope to encourage reflection and conversation among all relevant stakeholders about how best to implement patient-prioritized change in oncology care and policy.

The active involvement of patients in oncology research

The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the status of patient/public involvement (PPI) in oncology research, including definitions, regulatory aspects, ongoing clinical activities in different countries, achievements and difficulties. The 10-year activities of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) Patient Advisory Board are described, illustrating challenges faced and solutions in daily practice. Even though clinical data are still limited, it appears PPI has great potential for development in oncology. The drive for precision medicine, activities of patient organizations, pharmaceutical industry interest, and strong support from regulatory agencies, are facilitators to integration of PPI throughout the drug development process. Despite the availability of guidance documents providing recommendations for the implementation of PPI, lack of human and structural resources, training for patients / caregivers and healthcare personnel, and lack of collaboration among stakeholders are some of the main barriers reported. More rigorous reporting of PPI in clinical studies is needed, including the methods to evaluate the impact of PPI and in the representation of patients as partner.

A scoping review of patient and public involvement in empirical stroke research

BACKGROUND

Impactful, evidence-based solutions in surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation for stroke survivors are required to address the high global burden of stroke. Patient and public involvement (PPI), where patients, their families, and the public are actively involved as research partners, enhances the relevance, credibility, and impact of stroke-related research.

AIMS

This scoping review, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Scoping Review guidelines, aims to identify and summarize how PPI is currently implemented and reported in empirical stroke research using a participatory approach.

SUMMARY OF REVIEW

A comprehensive search strategy was developed and implemented across Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsynchINFO, and Cochrane electronic databases, supplemented by gray literature searches. Empirical stroke research articles in the English language, published from 2014 up to 2023, and documenting PPI activity were included. Of the 18,143 original articles identified, 2824 full-text manuscripts matching from this time window were screened. Only 2% (n = 72) of these directly reported embedded PPI activity in empirical research. The majority were qualitative in design (60%) and conducted in high-income countries (96%). Only one included study originated from a developing country, where the burden of stroke is highest. Most studies (94%) provided some information about the activities carried out with their PPI partners, mainly centered on the study design (57%) and management (64%), with only 4% of studies integrating PPI across all research cycle phases from funding application to dissemination. When studies were examined for compliance with the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) short-form checklist, only 11% of included studies were 100% compliant. Twenty-one studies (29%) reported barriers and facilitators to including PPI in stroke research. Organization, authentic partnership, and experienced PPI representatives were common facilitators and identified barriers reflected concerns around adequate funding, time required, and diversity in perspectives. A positive reporting bias for PPI impact was observed, summarized as keeping the patient perspective central to the research process, improved care of study participants, validation of study findings, and improved communication/lay-summaries of complex research concepts.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI is underutilized and inconsistently reported in current empirical stroke research. PPI must become more widely adopted, notably in low- and middle-income countries. Consensus-driven standards for inclusion of PPI by funding organizations and publishers are required to support its widespread adoption.

Addressing opioid misuse through community-engaged strategy development: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Involving stakeholders in the research process facilitates collaboration, increasing understanding of factors influencing their wellbeing and motivating community action. Currently, there is a need for randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of community-engaged research approaches for health, well-being, and engagement outcomes. In this study, we evaluate the effectiveness of both the SEED Method and a modified Delphi method in a participatory project to develop local strategies to address the opioid epidemic in three rural communities. The purpose of this study is to increase the level of evidence for community-engaged research methods through a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Two communities will use the SEED Method and one will use a modified Delphi method. We aim to recruit a total of 144 participants (48 per community). The evaluation team will randomize participants to an intervention group or a control group. In addition, we will collect outcome data from the participatory research team members leading the projects in each county (n = 18) and from additional community members who participate in focus groups (n = 32). The primary outcome for all participants will be the change in self-reported civic engagement as measured by the total score on the Individual Mobilization Scale.

DISCUSSION

In the context of participatory action to address opioid misuse in rural counties, this study will provide an understanding of the effectiveness of two community engagement methods for increasing civic engagement, as well as the extent to which participants successfully create locally tailored action strategies. The study will also explore how the observed effects differ depending on the participant's role in the project (stakeholder participant, community research team member, or focus group participant), which is an important consideration for participatory research.

Examining the involvement of guardians of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Tanzania as public contributors to inform the design and conduct of the GuardiansCan project: A mixed-methods study protocol

BACKGROUND

Public contribution in research can lead to the design and conduct of more feasible and relevant research. However, our understanding of the acceptability and feasibility of public contribution and the evidence base regarding its impact in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is limited.

METHODS

In this study protocol, we describe a mixed-method examination of public contribution activities in the GuardiansCan project. The GuardiansCan project aims to respond to Tanzanian guardians' poor adherence to children's follow-up care after treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) with the help of Mobile Health technology. We aim to: (1) involve guardians of children treated for ALL as Guardians Advisory Board (GAB) members in the managing and undertaking, analysis and interpretation, and dissemination phases of the GuardiansCan project; and (2) examine the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived impact of GAB members' contribution to the GuardiansCan project from the perspective of the GAB members and public contribution coordinators. We will recruit six to eight guardians of children treated for ALL to the GAB. We will hold workshops where GAB members contribute to all project phases. Using impact logs, we will record GAB workshop activities and the perceived impact of these activities. We will interview GAB members and public contribution coordinators 6 months after establishing the GAB, and at the end of each study within the project, to examine the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived impact of public contribution activities.

DISCUSSION

We expect GAB contribution to increase project quality and relevance, and inform how to best embed public contribution in research in LMICs.

Inequalities in patients' experiences with cancer care: the role of economic and health literacy determinants

BACKGROUND

Patients with fewer socioeconomic and health literacy resources are disadvantaged in their access and use of healthcare, which may give rise to worse experiences with care and thus inequalities in patient experiences. However, only a limited number of studies have examined how socioeconomic and health literacy factors shape inequalities in patients' experiences with cancer care.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether patients' experiences with cancer care differ according to their economic status and health literacy.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data on 2789 adult patients diagnosed with cancer from the Swiss Cancer Patient Experiences-2 (SCAPE-2) study, a cross-sectional survey conducted in eight hospitals across Switzerland from September 2021 to February 2022. Regression analysis was applied to examine the independent effect of patients' economic status and health literacy on various outcomes of experiences with cancer care, covering eight different dimensions of patient-centred care, controlling for confounding factors.

RESULTS

Adjusted regression analysis showed that patients with lower economic status reported significantly worse experiences with cancer care in 12 out of 29 specific care experiences, especially in the dimensions of 'respect for patients' preferences' and 'physical comfort' where all items of experiences were associated with economic status. Additionally, lower health literacy was associated with worse patient experiences in 23 specific care experiences. All items in the dimensions of 'respect for patients' preferences', 'physical comfort' and 'emotional support' were associated with health literacy.

DISCUSSION

This study revealed significant inequalities in experiences with cancer care shaped by the economic status and health literacy of patients across different dimensions of patient-centred care. It is essential to address the needs of more disadvantaged patients who face obstacles in their access and use of the healthcare system, not only to mitigate inequalities in cancer care but also to avoid inequalities in health outcomes.

Collaborating with cancer patients and informal caregivers in a European study on quality of life: protocol to embed patient and public involvement within the EUonQoL project

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become an essential part of health research. There is a need for genuine involvement in order to ensure that research is relevant to patients. This can then improve the quality, relevance, and impact of health research, while at the same time reducing wasted research and in doing so bringing science and society closer together. Despite the increasing attention for this involvement, it is not yet common practice to report on proposed activities. An article reporting planned PPI could provide guidance and inspiration for the wider academic community in future activities. Therefore, this current article aims to describe the way in which PPI principles are incorporated in the research project called "Quality of Life in Oncology: measuring what matters for cancer patients and survivors in Europe (EUonQoL)." This project aims to develop a new set of questionnaires to enable cancer patients to assess their quality of life, entitled the EUonQoL-Kit.

METHODS

The first step is to recruit cancer patients and their informal caregivers as co-researchers in order to train them to collaborate with the researchers. Based on their skills and preferences, they are then assigned to several of the project's work packages. Their individual roles, tasks, and responsibilities regarding the work packages, to which they have been assigned, are evaluated and adapted when necessary. The impact of their involvement is evaluated by both the researchers and co-researchers.

DISCUSSION

PPI is a complex and dynamic process. As such, the overall structure of the research may be defined while at the same time leaving room for certain aspects to be filled in later. Our research is, we believe, relevant as co-researcher involvement in such a large European project as EUonQoL is a new development.

Hereditary Cancer Syndrome Carriers: Feeling Left in the Corner

OBJECTIVES

There is limited evidence on health promotion interventions in people with hereditary cancer syndromes or on their main sources of support and information. This study aimed to understand these patients' experiences and needs, including their information needs, their views on prevention and mental health, and the support they want from nurses.

METHODS

This qualitative study included 22 people (8 previvors and 14 survivors) with hereditary breast and ovarian syndrome or Lynch syndrome from 10 European countries. Participants underwent individual semi-structured interviews, which were recorded and transcribed for reflexive thematic analysis. The patient and public involvement panel provided input on study design and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Patient experiences were similar regardless of the country and access to testing and screening. Participants reported receiving little information on the importance of health behaviors for cancer risk and expressed their wish to be followed by cancer professionals. They felt compelled to seek support and information from the internet and patient groups. The main themes identified were: (unmet) informational and support needs, seeing life in a different way, and limitations of health care providers.

CONCLUSIONS

People with hereditary cancer syndromes need professionals to be involved in their long-term management and to provide reliable information. As genomics are increasingly integrated in oncology, the need for professionals to support these populations will increase.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses are crucial for promoting self-management and advocating for patient decision-making; however, they need skills and knowledge to do so. There is a need for nurses to get more involved in understanding hereditary cancer syndromes and an opportunity to take the lead in the care of these people.

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE): how valuable and how hard? An evaluation of ALL_EARS@UoS PPIE group, 18 months on

BACKGROUND

ALL_EARS@UoS is a patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group for people with lived experience of hearing loss. The purpose of the group is to share experiences of hearing loss and hearing healthcare, inform research and improve services for patients at University of Southampton Auditory Implant Service. A year after inception, we wanted to critically reflect on the value and challenges of the group. Four members of ALL_EARS@UoS were recruited to an evaluation steering group. This paper reports the evaluation of the group using the UK Standards for Public Involvement.

METHODS

An anonymous, mixed-methods questionnaire was co-designed and shared with members of ALL_EARS@UoS using an online platform. The questionnaire was designed to capture satisfaction, individual feedback through free-text answers, and demographic information. Descriptive statistics have been used to express the satisfaction and demographic data. Reflexive thematic analysis has been used to analyse the free-text responses. Group engagement and activity data over time were monitored and collected.

RESULTS

The questionnaire response rate was 61% (11/18). Areas identified as strengths were 'Communication' and 'Working together'. Five themes were developed from the thematic analysis; (1) Increased knowledge and awareness around the topic of hearing health for group members and wider society, (2) supporting research, (3) inclusivity within the group, (4) opportunity to make a difference for people in the future and (5) running of the group/group organisation. The data highlighted the value and challenges of PPIE. Members described feeling listened to and appreciation of being able to share experiences. Time of day and meeting format were identified as challenges as they affected who could attend the meetings. The ability to secure and maintain sufficient funding and time to support inclusive and diverse PPIE activities is a challenge for researchers.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified how PPIE added value to both group members and researchers, emphasising the true benefit of PPIE. We have highlighted challenges we are facing and our plan to tackle these. We aim to continue to develop and sustain a group that reflects the diversity of the Deaf/deaf or hard of hearing community and of our local community.

Involving parents of children treated for cancer in Sweden as public contributors to inform the design and conduct of an evaluation of internet-administered self-help for parents of children treated for cancer: a protocol

INTRODUCTION

Public contribution in research can facilitate the design and conduct of meaningful research, resulting in feasible and sustainable solutions to healthcare challenges. However, the evidence concerning the acceptability, feasibility, and impact of public contribution in research is limited. We will embed a mixed-method examination of public contribution activities into the CHANGE trial. The overall aim of the CHANGE trial is to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an internet-administered, guided, low-intensity cognitive behavioral therapy-based self-help intervention (EJDeR) plus treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU for symptoms of depression and/or Generalized Anxiety Disorder in a superiority randomized controlled trial with an internal pilot phase. In this protocol we describe how we aim to: (1) involve parents of children treated for cancer in the managing and undertaking, analysis and interpretation, and dissemination phases of the CHANGE trial; and (2) examine the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived impact of Parent Advisory Board contribution to the trial from the perspective of board members and public contribution coordinators.

METHODS

We will recruit around six parents of children treated for cancer to the Parent Advisory Board. Board members will contribute throughout the trial during online workshops and steering group meetings. An impact log will be used during workshops to record activities and examine the perceived impact of activities according to board members and public contribution coordinators, including anticipated and unanticipated changes to the research process and potential benefits and harms. Activities will be reported using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public checklist. We will conduct semi-structured interviews with board members and public contribution coordinators 6 months after the board is established and at the end of the trial to examine the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived impact of public contribution activities. We will also conduct interviews with board members and public contribution coordinators who withdraw participation. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist.

DISCUSSION

We hope adding public contribution to the CHANGE trial will provide guidance on how to embed public contribution in research and add to the evidence base concerning the impact of public contribution.

From Innovator Result-driven to Multi-actor Impact-oriented Public-Private Partnerships: Integrating the Patient Perspective

Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) have been crucial in medicine research and development (R&D) for decades. Initially, PPPs involved private and academic innovators working in bilateral collaborations to advance pharmaceutical innovation. Later, a precompetitive open innovation environment was created, where multiple public and private innovators collaborated on mutual interests. The entry of regulators and patient interest organizations into PPPs has triggered a third shift from an innovator result-driven to a multi-actor impact-oriented partnership model. Using the second Innovative Medicines Initiative program (IMI2) as an example, this chapter focuses on the increasing roles of patient interest organizations in PPPs in roughly the last decade.Most IMI2 partnerships focused on raising awareness and sharing information tailored to patient needs (listener role) and inviting patients to share their experiences and needs (co-thinker role). Many partnerships also integrated the patient perspective by implementing patient advisory bodies (advisor role) or including patients as equal partners in steering the project (partner role). Notably, partnerships like EUPATI and PARADIGM showed that patient interest organizations can lead initiatives, especially those aiming at advancing patient engagement across the medicine R&D lifecycle (decision-maker role). While the overall impact of patient involvement in the IMI2 program is still being assessed, it has exposed many innovators and regulators to the patient perspective and created a community of patient experts with access to tools and guidelines for meaningful involvement.The PPP model continues to evolve, shifting from a treatment-only to a comprehensive diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring approach by incorporating digital and medical technology actors. This development, alongside continued patient and public integration could revolutionize the R&D and accessibility of new treatments and diagnostics.

Florida-California Cancer Health Equity Center (CaRE2) Community Scientist Research Advocacy Program

The Community Scientist Program (CSP), a model connecting researchers with community members, is effective to inform and involve the general population in health-related clinical research. Given the existing cancer disparities among Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino/a populations, more models describing how cancer-related CSPs are designed, implemented, and evaluated are needed. The Florida-California Cancer Research, Education and Engagement (CaRE2) Health Equity Center is a tri-institutional, bicoastal center created to eliminate cancer health disparities among Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino/a populations living in California and in Florida. The CaRE2 Center created a Community Scientist Research Advocacy (CSRA) training program for community members to become cancer research advocates. The CSRA program is currently a 13-week program conducted 100% virtually with all materials provided in English and Spanish for participants to learn more about prostate, lung, and pancreas cancers, ongoing research at CaRE2, and ways to share cancer research throughout their communities. Participants attend didactic lectures on cancer research during weeks 1-5. In week 4, participants join CSRA self-selected groups based on cancer-related topics of interest. Each group presents their cancer-related advocacy project developed during weeks 5-12 at the final session. In this paper, we describe the CaRE2 Health Equity Center's CSRA program, share results, and discuss opportunities for improvement in future program evaluation as well as replication of this model in other communities.