Purpose Patient advocates represent the voice of the patient community and bring a unique perspective to research. We hypothesized that including patient advocates in research training would increase trainees ability to communicate their science, understand the impact of their work and increase their empathy for patients.

Methods An IRB-approved survey was administered to assess the impact of patient advocate feedback on trainees who presented their research via posters at our Radiation Oncology Research Symposium. Trainees reported demographics and self-assessed their use of lay language, changes in empathy, understanding the impact of their research, and potential future implications. The binomial proportion test and Fisher’s exact test were used to determine significance.

Results The survey was completed by 80% (28/35) of trainees who participated in the poster session and interacted with patient advocates. Trainees were predominantly younger (60.7% under 30yo) and people of color (60.7%). Almost all trainees (96.4%) were comfortable talking to advocates but only 89.29% were comfortable using lay language. Trainees agreed (75%) that interacting with advocates increased their empathy. Most trainees (71.4%) believed patient advocates helped them understand the significance of their research and 64.3% believed advocates helped them develop new research ideas. Most trainees would like advocates at future poster presentations (85.7%), but did not want them to participate in study design or analysis. Gender and training level did not affect trainees’ ability to communicate in lay language, their empathy for patients, or understanding of their work’s clinical relevance.

Conclusions Including patient advocates in poster sessions may improve trainees ability to present their research in lay language, increase their empathy and understand the clinical impact of their research. Future radiation oncology training should consider including the patient advocate voice to improve the tangible connection between research and real-world impact.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This work was in part funded by NCI/NIH U54 CA273956 (PT and NLS) and 5P30CA056036 (AL, APD and NLS).

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The IRB of Thomas Jefferson University gave ethical approval for this work.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Conflict of Interest: None

Funding Statement: This work was in part funded by NCI/NIH U54 CA273956 (PT and NLS) and 5P30CA056036 (AL, APD and NLS).

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.