ArticleBMJ open2025
Patient perspectives on access to oncology innovations: protocol for a systematic meta-aggregation review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Access to innovation in oncology from patients' perspectives: a qualitative systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealthcare innovation in oncology has accelerated in recent years, with the development of targeted therapies, digital tools and novel care pathways. While these advances promise improved outcomes, concerns remain about unequal access across patient populations. Patient perspectives on access to innovation remain underexplored, yet may offer valuable insights to support more equitable and patient-centred implementation strategies.
objectivesThis meta-aggregation study aims to explore how adult patients with cancer perceive their access to healthcare innovations. A secondary objective is to identify the barriers, facilitators and contextual factors that influence this access, as well as patients' understandings or definitions of innovation, when available. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: A systematic meta-aggregation review will be conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. Full-text, peer-reviewed articles reporting qualitative studies of patients' experiences with innovations in oncology will be included. Studies will be identified through searches in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cairn.info, with no date restrictions. Articles in English and French will be considered. Two independent reviewers will screen and extract data and assess methodological quality using the JBI checklist. Synthesis will follow the JBI three-phase approach. Confidence in the evidence will be assessed using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) tool. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 reporting guidelines will be followed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this study, as it is based on previously published data. The findings will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251046315.
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.