ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2026
Improving Access and Recruitment to Clinical Trials for Lung Cancer Patients: A Multi-Phase, Qualitative Focus Group and Co-Production Study.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and initial validation of a scale assessing sources of decision hesitation in patients with lung cancer invited to participate in drug clinical trials.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- The Overlooked Power of Peer Support in Translating the Lung I-ACT Tool Into Everyday Practice.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Supporting nurses to improve clinical trial discussions with patients with lung cancer using the Lung I-ACT tool: a mixed methods pilot study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Article
- Improving Access and Recruitment to Clinical Trials for Lung Cancer Patients: A Multi-Phase, Qualitative Focus Group and Co-Production Study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo design and develop a novel co-produced intervention tool aimed at facilitating discussions that lung cancer nurses have with lung cancer patients about clinical trial opportunities; and promote trial recruitment.
designA multi-phase qualitative focus group (phase 1) and co-production (phase 2) study.
methodsThe rigorous design and content of the intervention tool was informed by qualitative data from seven focus groups with lung cancer healthcare professionals (n = 38) and patients and their carers (n = 22) to establish barriers and facilitators to clinical trial participation. Data collection took place across England and Scotland between October and December 2023. Findings from a previously published systematic review were also incorporated to inform intervention tool design. The tool was developed through an extended co-production workshop comprising lung cancer nurses (n = 7), lung cancer patients (n = 2) and health researchers (n = 4). The COM-B model of behavioural change underpinned both phases of the project to guide tool development.
resultsPhase 1 focus groups identified the need for a tool to provide basic trial information to patients, and to support lung cancer nurses in discussing trials with patients, thus improving nurses' knowledge, confidence, and awareness of trials. The phase 2 coproduction workshop identified that the tool should consist of two elements: a patient-facing information pamphlet and a large poster for nurses to assist them in discussing trial opportunities.
conclusionThe study results demonstrate how nurses can be supported to discuss clinical trial opportunities with patients, with the potential to increase long-term recruitment to clinical trials. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Lung cancer nurses often lack confidence to support patients to make informed choices about trial enrolment. By addressing this issue, participation in lung cancer clinical trials can be significantly improved to benefit patient outcomes and trial participation rates. IMPACT: The tool has the potential to be used across a range of different cancer settings and sites to increase recruitment to clinical trials. REPORTING
methodThe COREQ checklist was utilised to ensure that robust processes were followed and reported on. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Patients and members of the public were involved in all study processes and contributed to the study design, interpretation of the data, and intervention design. Their contributions included reviewing focus group topic guides, reviewing data analysis, the co-production of the intervention tool, and co-authoring this paper, ensuring the research addressed the needs and priorities of lung cancer patients when making an informed choice about clinical trial participation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.