ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026
Patients as Co-Researchers in Oncology: A Qualitative Exploration of Participatory Governance.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patients as Co-Researchers in Oncology: A Qualitative Exploration of Participatory Governance.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly promoted in health services research, yet empirical evidence remains limited on how participatory governance is operationalised in research practices.
methodsThis qualitative study explored patient partners' experiences of involvement in the PaRole OncO France (PROOF) research project, a multicentre participatory action research (PAR) project aimed at adapting, implementing and evaluating a peer support intervention in oncology. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patient partners involved in project governance. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis, with patient partners involved in validating analytic outputs.
resultsSeven of the eight invited patient partners (PPs) were interviewed. Three interrelated themes emerged: (1) personal invitation as recognition: a catalyst of engagement, whereby being personally solicited was experienced as recognition of experiential legitimacy; (2) securing a 'real place': relational trust, dedicated spaces and institutional frictions, capturing both the conditions enabling genuine co-governance (dedicated spaces, recognition of experiential knowledge and responsive research teams) and the administrative and temporal constraints that strained it; and (3) reciprocal transformation: perceived impacts on the research and on personal trajectories. Patient partners perceived meaningful contributions to intervention design and team cohesion, alongside personal benefits such as skills development and network building. Persistent barriers were primarily structural, including administrative constraints, research temporalities and regulatory procedures.
conclusionPROOF illustrates how intentional participatory governance mechanisms can support sustained PPI in research. Addressing administrative barriers, clarifying roles and nurturing trust and communication are crucial for meaningful participation in oncology research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The qualitative data presented in this manuscript were obtained through interviews with patient partners. Patient partners co-designed governance structures, participated in all committees, co-facilitated co-construction workshops, and contributed to data interpretation and manuscript validation.
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.