MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380985443 · doi:10.1002/cam4.6200

Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review

2023· review· en· W4380985443 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Colomer‐Lahiguera, Matthieu Steimer, Ursula Ellis, Manuela Eicher, Margaret Tompson, Tourane Corbière, Kristen R. Haase

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOMEDLINENarrativeNarrative reviewMedicineOriginal researchDiversity (politics)Alternative medicineMedical educationPsychologyFamily medicineNursingComputer scienceLibrary sciencePathologySociologyPsychological interventionPolitical scienceIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.098
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.253
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0980.253
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0300.038
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.868
GPT teacher head0.668
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer MedicineSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207