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
. 2025 Jun;28(3):e70267.
doi: 10.1111/hex.70267.

Evaluating the Involvement of People With Cancer and Informal Caregivers in the Development Process of a New Set of Quality of Life Questionnaires

Merel Engelaar  1 , Femke van Schelven  1 , Nanne Bos  1 , Marion L'Hote  2 , Clémentine Rialland  2 , Norbert Couespel  2 , Carina Dantas  3 , Caitriona Higgins  4 , Tapani Kalmi  5 , Inke Minnée-van Braak  6 , Laura Pinnavaia  7 , Giovanni Apolone  8 , Cinzia Brunelli  9 , Augusto Caraceni  10 , Montse Ferrer  11 , Mogens Groenvold  12 , Stein Kaasa  13 , Gennaro Ciliberto  14 , Claudio Lombardo  15 , Ricardo Pietrobon  16 , Gabriella Pravettoni  17   18 , Aude Sirven  19 , Hugo Vachon  20 , Galina Velikova  21   22 , Jany Rademakers  1   23
Affiliations

Evaluating the Involvement of People With Cancer and Informal Caregivers in the Development Process of a New Set of Quality of Life Questionnaires

Merel Engelaar et al. Health Expect. 2025 Jun.

Abstract

Introduction: There is a general need for sharing practical examples of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) within the research field to learn from and inspire. The aim of this article is to describe our process evaluation of PPI within the development process of the EUonQoL-Kit, a new set of quality of life questionnaires aimed at people with (past experience of) cancer.

Methods: Five co-researchers (people with cancer and informal caregivers) were recruited and received training and support from a dedicated team of researchers. Involvement in the development process of the EUonQoL-Kit consisted of four major events: two workshops, a consensus meeting and a stakeholder forum. We have collected event documents, that is, meeting agendas, presentation slides, minutes of the events and minutes of meetings with co-researchers before and after the events, and qualitatively analysed these using the Cube Framework.

Results: Our process evaluation showed that, over time, discussions evolved from focusing on the technical aspects of the EUonQoL-Kit to co-researchers' experiences as input for the questionnaires. Researchers' inexperience with PPI prompted the organisation of a training workshop. After this, researchers prepared the co-researchers better for the meetings and engaged them more actively by asking specific questions. All these developments contributed to a more active participation of co-researchers.

Conclusion: PPI in the development process of the EUonQoL-Kit was a learning process. Factors that helped include allocating time and resources, actively creating space for co-researchers' input, providing support by researchers specifically responsible for the PPI activities and realising the importance of informal contact. Future PPI efforts should incorporate these principles from the start to facilitate successful collaboration between researchers and co-researchers.

Patient or public contribution: People with cancer and informal caregivers played a significant role in this study. They were involved as co-researchers in all stages of the development process of the EUonQoL-Kit. In addition, they were involved in the qualitative analysis of the data presented in this article, the writing of the project report and the writing of this article as co-authors.

Keywords: Europe; co‐researchers; oncology; patient and public involvement; patient participation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Timeline of the major events during the development process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The Cube Framework, adapted from Gibson et al. [24].
Figure 3
Figure 3
Visual representation of the development in co‐researchers' involvement according to the four dimensions of the Cube Framework, from the initial meetings (a) to the end (b) of the development process.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Staniszewska S., Haywood K. L., Brett J., and Tutton L., “Patient and Public Involvement in Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures: Evolution not Revolution,” Patient: Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research 5, no. 2 (2012): 79–87. - PubMed
    1. Wiering B., de Boer D., and Delnoij D., “Patient Involvement in the Development of Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures: A Scoping Review,” Health Expectations 20, no. 1 (2017): 11–23. - PMC - PubMed
    1. “Briefing Notes for Researchers ‐ Public Involvement in NHS, Health and Social Care Research,” NIHR, 2021, https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/briefing-notes-for-researchers-public-i....
    1. van der Scheer L., Garcia E., van der Laan A. L., van der Burg S., and Boenink M., “The Benefits of Patient Involvement for Translational Research,” Health Care Analysis 25, no. 3 (2017): 225–241. - PubMed
    1. van Schelven F., Boeije H., and Rademakers J., “Evaluating Meaningful Impact of Patient and Public Involvement: A Q Methodology Study Among Researchers and Young People With a Chronic Condition,” Health Expectations 25, no. 2 (2022): 712–720. - PMC - PubMed