ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
A human-centered, participatory design approach to cancer research training.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advancing translational cancer research increasingly requires meaningful engagement with patients, survivors, and communities; however, most research training models introduce community engagement later in training and frame it as a discrete competency rather than a formative dimension of scientific development. To explore an alternative approach, we developed a structured pilot training initiative designed to engage cancer research trainees early in their formation through sustained interaction with cancer survivors and advocates. Guided by human-centered and participatory design principles, this pilot was intentionally designed to foster early relational development between trainees and community members, cultivating solidarity, empathy, and bidirectional learning through sustained dialogue and shared inquiry. The initiative was implemented as a six-week virtual program combining didactic sessions, survivorship panels, bidirectional dialogue, and problem-based co-learning activities. Participants included biomedical trainees, scientists, cancer survivors, and advocates recruited through academic and community networks. Formative data were collected using pre- and post-session surveys and open-ended reflections to assess feasibility, engagement, and early learning signals. Across the pilot, participants reported increased comfort engaging across differences in expertise and lived experience, greater appreciation for survivor perspectives in research development, and improved ability to communicate cancer science in accessible language. Themes from the dialogue reflected a shared recognition among both trainees and survivors that bidirectional communication deepens understanding of cancer while also shaping how individuals perceive and experience their own identity. These findings suggest that intentionally sequencing cancer research training to foreground lived experience, dialogue, and co-learning may help cultivate relational capacities essential for ethical, participatory cancer research. Future work will focus on expanding and evaluating this model longitudinally and integrating formation-centered, human-centered design approaches within broader community-engaged interprofessional education efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.