Martine T E Puts1, Schroder Sattar2, Vida Ghodraty-Jabloo2, Tina Hsu3, Marg Fitch2, Ewa Szumacher4, Ana Patricia Ayala5, Shabbir M H Alibhai6. 1. Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: martine.puts@utoronto.ca. 2. Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 4. Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Gerstein Information Science Centre, University of Toronto Libraries, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 6. Department of Medicine, Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cancer is a disease that mostly affects older adults. Older adults have been under-represented in clinical cancer research. Around the world there is a push for patient engagement on study teams as it is anticipated to improve study design, recruitment and dissemination of findings. In the current overview we examined the evidence with regard to: 1) the history of patient engagement in research and frameworks developed; 2) impact of patient engagement on patient and research outcomes; 3) use of patient engagement in geriatrics and oncology, 4) recommendations for successful engagement; and 5) gaps in the literature that should be studied further. METHODS: A narrative review was conducted. Articles published in English were searched in Medline with the help of a librarian. RESULTS: Patient engagement has been shown to improve the conduct of studies by making the study design more relevant and feasible, and improving recruitment rates and uptake of research findings by patients. However, the best way to engage patients is not clear yet. Several resources have been developed to support researchers engaging older adults with cancer in research. CONCLUSIONS: While patient engagement in research seems promising to improve study outcomes, little evidence is available thus far in geriatric oncology settings. Several gaps in the literature are identified that should be further studied to determine the value of, and best approaches to, patient engagement with older adults with cancer.
OBJECTIVE:Cancer is a disease that mostly affects older adults. Older adults have been under-represented in clinical cancer research. Around the world there is a push for patient engagement on study teams as it is anticipated to improve study design, recruitment and dissemination of findings. In the current overview we examined the evidence with regard to: 1) the history of patient engagement in research and frameworks developed; 2) impact of patient engagement on patient and research outcomes; 3) use of patient engagement in geriatrics and oncology, 4) recommendations for successful engagement; and 5) gaps in the literature that should be studied further. METHODS: A narrative review was conducted. Articles published in English were searched in Medline with the help of a librarian. RESULTS:Patient engagement has been shown to improve the conduct of studies by making the study design more relevant and feasible, and improving recruitment rates and uptake of research findings by patients. However, the best way to engage patients is not clear yet. Several resources have been developed to support researchers engaging older adults with cancer in research. CONCLUSIONS: While patient engagement in research seems promising to improve study outcomes, little evidence is available thus far in geriatric oncology settings. Several gaps in the literature are identified that should be further studied to determine the value of, and best approaches to, patient engagement with older adults with cancer.
Authors: Nikesha J Gilmore; Beverly Canin; Mary Whitehead; Margaret Sedenquist; Lorraine Griggs; Lynn Finch; Valerie Grossman; Valerie Targia; Megan Wells; Charles Kamen; Marie Flannery; Allison Magnuson; Sandy Plumb; Spencer Obrecht; Lisa M Lowenstein; Gilberto Lopez; Jainy Anderson; Jeffrey Berenberg; Victor Vogel; James Bearden; William Dale; Supriya G Mohile Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lee A Kehoe; Huiwen Xu; Paul Duberstein; Kah Poh Loh; Eva Culakova; Beverly Canin; Arti Hurria; William Dale; Megan Wells; Nikesha Gilmore; Amber S Kleckner; Jennifer Lund; Charles Kamen; Marie Flannery; Mike Hoerger; Judith O Hopkins; Jane Jijun Liu; Jodi Geer; Ron Epstein; Supriya G Mohile Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Erin E Kent; Eliza M Park; William A Wood; Ashley Leak Bryant; Michelle A Mollica Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 50.717