Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Keep up to date with all the top stories and latest evidence with our hub page, including official congress videos and expert takeaways.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Cancer
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2023

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Research

Public and patient involvement: a survey on knowledge, experience and opinions among researchers within a precision oncology European project

Authors: Paola Mosconi, Cinzia Colombo, Pasquale Paletta, Laura Gangeri, Chiara Pellegrini, Elena Garralda, Rosalba Miceli, Cinzia Brunelli, on behalf of CEE_DART Consortium

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is slowly but steadily being implemented in all phases of clinical research. As part of the European project “Building Data Rich Clinical Trials” a survey was launched to investigate the knowledge, experiences and opinions on this topic of clinicians and researchers from seven European clinical and non-clinical centers (Cancer Core Europe).

Methods

An invitation to take part in a cross-sectional web survey was sent to 199 clinicians and researchers working in the field of precision oncology. The questionnaire was developed ad hoc because no existing questionnaires met the purpose of this study. The analysis takes account of whether respondents had experience on PPI or not.

Results

On a total of 101 respondents, this survey reveals that 76.2% of them knew about PPI before answering the questionnaire, 54.5% had experience in the previous five years and 86.1% were interested in a training course on this topic. PPI knowledge grew together with career seniority (peak of 86.5% for established career professionals), while the group most interested in a course was the early-career professionals (100.0%). Finally, the majority of respondents stated they had no training or education on PPI (67.3% of experienced and 82.6% of not-experienced respondents).

Conclusions

This survey shows that most cancer researchers knew the term PPI, even if only a little more than half of them had any relative experience. Opinions on PPI benefits, negative effects, barriers and requirements differed between the groups of PPI experienced and not-experienced respondents, showing that experience itself can influence respondents’ opinions. Most of respondents reported they would prefer a training course based on practical rather than theoretical tools.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
McIver S, Brocklehurst N. Public involvement: working for better health. Nurs Stand. 1999;14(1):46–52.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Staley K, Elliott J, Stewart D, Wilson R. Who should I involve in my research and why? Patients, carers or the public? Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Nilsen ES, Myrhaug HT, Johansen M, Oliver S, Oxman AD. Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2006(3):CD004563.PubMedPubMedCentral
4.
5.
Richards T, Montori VM, Godlee F, Lapsley P, Paul D. Let the patient revolution begin. BMJ. 2013;14(346):f2614.CrossRef
6.
Trivedi P, Wykes T. From passive subjects to equal partners: qualitative review of user involvement in research. Br J Psychiatry. 2002;181:468–72.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Minogue V, Boness J, Brown A, Girdlestone J. The impact of service user involvement in research. Int J Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv. 2005;18(2–3):103–12.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Wright D, Foster C, Amir Z, Elliott J, Wilson R. Critical appraisal guidelines for assessing the quality and impact of user involvement in research. Health Expect. 2010;13(4):359–68.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
10.
11.
Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA, McElwee N, Guise JM, Santa J, et al. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(8):985–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):637–50.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Wicks P, Richards T, Denegri S, Godlee F. Patients’ roles and rights in research. BMJ. 2018;25(362):k3193.CrossRef
14.
Lang I, King A, Jenkins G, Boddy K, Khan Z, Liabo K. How common is patient and public involvement (PPI)? Cross-sectional analysis of frequency of PPI reporting in health research papers and associations with methods, funding sources and other factors. BMJ Open. 2022;12(5):e063356.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Buchanan M, O’Connell D, Mosconi P. Europa DONNA, the European Breast Cancer Coalition: lobbying at European and local levels. J Ambul Care Manage. 2004;27(2):146–53.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Visco F. The National Breast Cancer Coalition: setting the standard for advocate collaboration in clinical trials. Cancer Treat Res. 2007;132:143–56.CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
Pii KH, Schou LH, Piil K, Jarden M. Current trends in patient and public involvement in cancer research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2019;22(1):3–20.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Fitzgibbon J, Baillie J, Simon N, Nelson A. The role of the public in developing interventions: a reflection and critique of a cancer clinical trials unit’s model. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:1527–35.PubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Dudley L, Gamble C, Allam A, Bell P, Buck D, Goodare H, et al. A little more conversation please? Qualitative study of researchers’ and patients’ interview accounts of training for patient and public involvement in clinical trials. Trials. 2015;27(16):190.CrossRef
21.
Biddle MSY, Gibson A, Evans D. Attitudes and approaches to patient and public involvement across Europe: A systematic review. Health Soc Care Community. 2021;29(1):18–27.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Yu R, Hanley B, Denegri S, Ahmed J, McNally NJ. Evaluation of a patient and public involvement training programme for researchers at a large biomedical research centre in the UK. BMJ Open. 2021;11(8):e047995.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Boylan AM, Locock L, Thomson R, Staniszewska S. ‘About sixty per cent I want to do it’: Health researchers’ attitudes to, and experiences of, patient and public involvement (PPI)-A qualitative interview study. Health Expect. 2019;22(4):721–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
27.
Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156–65.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Price A, Schroter S, Snow R, Hicks M, Harmston R, Staniszewska S, et al. Frequency of reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies published in a general medical journal: a descriptive study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(3):e020452.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Aries AM, Bailey P, Hunter SM. The mutual benefits of patient and public involvement in research: an example from a feasibility study (MoTaStim-Foot). Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Carolan K, Charlot M, Gawuga C, Freeman E, Kim JH, Sprague ML. Assessing cancer center researcher and provider perspectives on patient engagement. Transl Behav Med. 2020;10(6):1573–80.PubMed
31.
Coulman KD, Nicholson A, Shaw A, Daykin A, Selman LE, Macefield R, et al. Understanding and optimising patient and public involvement in trial oversight: an ethnographic study of eight clinical trials. Trials. 2020;21(1):543.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Jørgensen CR, Eskildsen NB, Johnsen AT. User involvement in a Danish project on the empowerment of cancer patients - experiences and early recommendations for further practice. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
34.
Mosconi P, Antes G, Barbareschi G, Burls A, Demotes-Mainard J, Chalmers I, et al. A European multi-language initiative to make the general population aware of independent clinical research: the European Communication on Research Awareness Need project. Trials. 2016;12(17):19.CrossRef
35.
36.
Mosconi P, Satolli R, Colombo C, Villani W. Does a consumer training work? a follow-up survey of the PartecipaSalute training programs. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;1(10):27.CrossRef
37.
Brtnikova M, Crane LA, Allison MA, Hurley LP, Beaty BL, Kempe A. A method for achieving high response rates in national surveys of U.S. primary care physicians. PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0202755.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Johnson TP, Wislar JS. Response rates and nonresponse errors in surveys. JAMA. 2012;307(17):1805–6.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Public and patient involvement: a survey on knowledge, experience and opinions among researchers within a precision oncology European project
Authors
Paola Mosconi
Cinzia Colombo
Pasquale Paletta
Laura Gangeri
Chiara Pellegrini
Elena Garralda
Rosalba Miceli
Cinzia Brunelli
on behalf of CEE_DART Consortium
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-11262-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

BMC Cancer 1/2023 Go to the issue

Research

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with modified FOLFOXIRI for locally advanced rectal cancer to transform effectively EMVI and MRF from positive to negative: results of a long-term single center phase 2 clinical trial

Research

MicroRNA-125b as a valuable predictive marker for outcome after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Research

Lactate metabolism-related genes to predict the clinical outcome and molecular characteristics of endometrial cancer

Research

Preoperative assessment of peripheral vascular invasion of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma based on high-resolution MRI

Research

Validation of an anti-α-Gal IgE fluoroenzyme-immunoassay for the screening of patients at risk of severe anaphylaxis to cetuximab

Research

BYL719 reverses gefitinib-resistance induced by PI3K/AKT activation in non-small cell lung cancer cells
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits