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
. 2024 May;7(5):e2071.
doi: 10.1002/cnr2.2071.

Asking those who know their needs best: A framework for active engagement and involvement of childhood cancer survivors and parents in the process of psychosocial research-A workshop report

Liesa J Weiler-Wichtl  1   2 , Carina Schneider  3 , Hannah Gsell  3   4 , Anna-Maria Maletzky  1 , Anita Kienesberger  3 , Claas Röhl  4   5 , Albina Bocolli  3 , Johannes Gojo  1 , Rita Hansl  1   6 , Anna Zettl  1 , Maximilian Hopfgartner  1 , Ulrike Leiss  1
Affiliations

Asking those who know their needs best: A framework for active engagement and involvement of childhood cancer survivors and parents in the process of psychosocial research-A workshop report

Liesa J Weiler-Wichtl et al. Cancer Rep (Hoboken). 2024 May.

Abstract

Background: Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in healthcare research is crucial for effectively addressing patients' needs and setting appropriate research priorities. However, there is a lack of awareness and adequate methods for practicing PPIE, especially for vulnerable groups like childhood cancer survivors.

Aims: This project aimed to develop and evaluate engagement methods to actively involve pediatric oncological patients, survivors, and their caregivers in developing relevant research questions and practical study designs.

Methods and results: An interdisciplinary working group recruited n = 16 childhood cancer survivors and their caregivers to work through the entire process of developing a research question and a practicable study design. A systematic literature review was conducted to gather adequate PPIE methods which were then applied and evaluated in a series of three workshop modules, each lasting 1.5 days. The applied methods were continuously evaluated, while a monitoring group oversaw the project and continuously developed and adapted additional methods. The participants rated the different methods with varying scores. Over the workshop series, the participants successfully developed a research question, devised an intervention, and designed a study to evaluate their project. They also reported increased expertise in PPIE and research knowledge compared to the baseline. The project resulted in a practical toolbox for future research, encompassing the final workshop structure, evaluated methods and materials, guiding principles, and general recommendations.

Conclusion: These findings demonstrate that with a diverse set of effective methods and flexible support, actively involving patients, survivors, and caregivers can uncover patients' unmet disease-related needs and generate practical solutions apt for scientific evaluation. The resulting toolbox, filled with evaluated and adaptable methods (workbook, Supplement 1 and 2), equips future scientists with the necessary resources to successfully perform PPIE in the development of health care research projects that effectively integrate patients' perspectives and address actual cancer-related needs. This integration of PPIE practices has the potential to enhance the quality and relevance of health research and care, as well as to increase patient empowerment leading to sustainable improvements in patients' quality of life.

Keywords: interdisciplinary health teams; neuropsychology; patient and public involvement and engagement; pediatric cancer; survival; workshop.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Project workflow including the preparation, execution, evaluation, and publication of the workshop.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Key workshop phases including the main objectives and output.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Photos of the interventions developed by the three subgroups within the workshop.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Michel G, Brinkman TM, Wakefield CE, Grootenhuis M. Psychological outcomes, health‐related quality of life, and neurocognitive functioning in survivors of childhood cancer and their parents. Pediatric Clin NA. 2020;67(6):1103‐1134. doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2020.07.005 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schröder HM, Lilienthal S, Schreiber‐Gollwitzer BM, et al. Psychosoziale Versorgung in der pädiatrischen Onkologie. Psychosoziale Arbeitsgemeinschaft in der Gesellschaft für Pädiatrische Onkologie Und Hämatologie (PSAPOH); 2019.
    1. Nicklin E, Velikova G, Hulme C, et al. Long‐term issues and supportive care needs of adolescent and young adult childhood brain tumour survivors and their caregivers: a systematic review. Psychooncology. 2019;28(3):477‐487. - PubMed
    1. Seitz DCM, Besier T, Debatin KM, et al. Posttraumatic stress, depression and anxiety among adult long‐term survivors of cancer in adolescence. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(9):1596‐1606. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2010.03.001 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Strini V, Daicampi C, Trevisan N, et al. Transition of care in pediatric oncohematology: a systematic literature review. Acta Biomed. 2020;91:48‐64. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types