ArticleBMC health services research2025
Differences in rural and urban patient perceptions of facilitative factors for cancer clinical trial participation.
Article in BMC health services research, 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.
- Cancer clinical trial recruitment for patients from rural areas: a scoping review.International journal for equity in health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRural populations are underrepresented within cancer clinical trials. Lower enrollment may exacerbate disparities in rural and urban health outcomes. Although research on the patient-related facilitators of clinical trial participation has been conducted, rural populations have limited representation within this research. The present study aims to understand the factors that influence clinical trial participation in rural compared to urban cancer patients.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with rural (n = 15) and urban (n = 15) cancer patients currently enrolled in an active treatment clinical trial. The participants were recruited from the University of Vermont Cancer Center and affiliated Central Vermont Medical Center. Rural was defined using the Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes (rural ≥ 4). The interviews included closed- and open-ended questions. Closed-ended questions were analyzed quantitatively, and qualitative themes were extracted from open-ended questions.
resultsAlthough rural and urban patients rated the quantitatively measured factors similarly, differences were found within the qualitative themes. Personal transportation and a free, local lodging option were more essential for rural patients. Similarly, all patients benefited from well-coordinated appointments, but rural patients especially appreciated when cancer-related visits were coordinated with non-cancer ones. Rural patients also tended to prefer in-person contact with their healthcare team. Urban patients more often noted enrolling in trials to advance treatment for future patients or receive additional services themselves.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that the structure and systems of clinical trials may improve care coordination experiences above and beyond treatment as usual. All patients benefit from care coordination, but it is especially important for rural patients who often experience fragmented care. Planning for coordinated appointments, travel logistics, and in-person communication may increase rural patient participation in clinical trials.
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.