ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026
Exploring the Current Use of Educational Technologies in the Oncology Domain Across Europe: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConsidering the increasing relevance of digital education in cancer training, this study explores the current use of educational technologies in oncology across Europe.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using convenience sampling to gather responses from learners and educators across Europe. Data was collected online via Lime Survey.
resultsResults indicate that both groups are most familiar with synchronous and blended learning, with less experience in asynchronous and hybrid formats. Live lectures were the most used tool, while virtual reality and simulations were less used. Regional differences reveal that Northern Europe prefers audio-based tools and e-books, while Central Europe demonstrates higher familiarity with asynchronous learning and interactive tools. Southern Europe has less experience with various modalities and tools. Professionally, cancer nurses reported more experience with asynchronous learning and learning management systems, while clinical oncologists demonstrated limited familiarity with various tools, particularly emerging technologies.
conclusionsFor multi-disciplinary oncology training to succeed, practitioners need to align learning objectives with participants' prior experiences and balance diverse target groups and implementation needs to address regional and professional disparities. Targeted efforts are needed to bridge gaps in digital infrastructure, accessibility, and institutional support. Explanatory studies are needed to confirm these findings.
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.