Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Oct 18:16:26323524221131581.
doi: 10.1177/26323524221131581. eCollection 2022.

The impacts of partnering with cancer patients in palliative care research: a systematic review and meta-synthesis

Alessandra Paolucci  1 , Ingrid Nielssen  2 , Karen L Tang  2   3 , Aynharan Sinnarajah  2   4   5   6 , Jessica E Simon  2   3   6 , Maria J Santana  2   7
Affiliations
Review

The impacts of partnering with cancer patients in palliative care research: a systematic review and meta-synthesis

Alessandra Paolucci et al. Palliat Care Soc Pract. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: Palliative care (PC) is an added layer of support provided concurrently with cancer care and serves to improve wellbeing and sustain quality of life. Understanding what is meaningful and a priority to patients, their families, and caregivers with lived experience of cancer and PC is critical in supporting their needs and improving their care provision. However, the impacts of engaging cancer patients within the context of PC research remain unknown.

Objective: To examine the impacts of engaging individuals with lived experience of cancer and PC as partners in PC research.

Methods: An a priori systematic review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021286744). Four databases (APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE) were searched and only published, peer-reviewed primary English studies aligned with the following criteria were included: (1) patients, their families, and/or caregivers with lived experience of cancer and PC; (2) engaged as partners in PC research; and (3) reported the impacts of engaging cancer PC patient partners in PC research. We appraised the quality of eligible studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) and GRIPP2 reporting checklists.

Results: Three studies that included patient partners with lived experience of cancer and PC engaged at all or several of the research stages were identified. Our thematic meta-synthesis revealed impacts (benefits and opportunities) on patient partners (emotional, psychological, cognitive, and social), the research system (practical and ethical) and health care system (service improvements, bureaucratic attitudes, and inaction). Our findings highlight the paucity of evidence investigating the impacts of engaging patients, their families and caregivers with lived experience of cancer and PC, as partners in PC research.

Conclusions: The results of this review and meta-synthesis can inform the more effective design of cancer patient partnerships in PC research and the development of feasible and effective strategies given the cancer and PC context patient partners are coming from.

Keywords: cancer; engagement; impact; palliative care; partnering; patient partner; patient-oriented research; systematic review; thematic meta-synthesis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
PRISMA (2020) flow diagram of the systematic review process.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Emergent model from meta-synthesis.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research – patient engagement framework, https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48413.html (2019, accessed 14 December 2021).
    1. Manafo E, Peterman L, Mason-Lai P, et al.. Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of patient engagement in health research. Health Res Policy Syst 2018; 16: 1–11. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Forbat L, Hubbard G, Kearney N. Patient and public involvement: models and muddles. J Clin Nurs 2009; 18: 2547–2554. - PubMed
    1. Tscherning SC, Bekker HL, Vedelo TW, et al.. How to engage patient partners in health service research: a scoping review protocol. Res Involv Engagem 2021; 7: 1–7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zibrowski E, Carr T, McDonald S, et al.. A rapid realist review of patient engagement in patient-oriented research and health care system impacts: part one. Res Involv Engagem 2021; 7: 1–13. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources