ArticleCancer2026
Assessing patient perspectives on enrollment in lymphoma clinical trials.
Article in Cancer, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical trials drive advances in lymphoma care, yet certain patient groups including socioeconomically disadvantaged, racial/ethnic groups, and women remain underrepresented. Given limited/inconsistent data regarding solutions to improve clinical trial enrollment of these groups, the authors performed a study to assess patient perspectives on barriers to enrollment and define priorities for future interventions.
methodsPatients completed surveys developed to assess patient-level factors, barriers to opportunity, attitudes toward participation, and perspectives on interventions.
resultsAmong 301 participants, non-Hispanic White (NHW) and patients with an income >$100 k/year reported better understanding of clinical trials compared to Hispanic (H) patients and patients with an income <$50 k/year (NHW: 58% vs. H: 40%, p = .015; >$100 k/year: 59.8% vs. <$50 k/year: 38.8%, p = .012). Compared to NHW, H and African American (AA) patients reported more concern regarding visit frequency (NHW: 10%; H: 27%; AA: 23%, p = .005), travel distance (NHW: 14%; H: 34%, p = .010; AA: 31%, p = .013), taking time off work (NHW: 9%; H: 23% p = <.001; AA: 18%, p = .006) and study complexity (NHW: 6%; H: 20%, p = .008; AA: 22%, p = .001). Compared to male patients, female patients more commonly noted that having childcare services (male: 11%, female: 23%, p = .004), flexible appointment times (male: 43%, female: 62%, p = .015), and housing closer to the clinic/hospital (male: 44%, female: 55%, p = .016) as helpful interventions to improve trial participation. Regardless of group, 71% of patients noted that insurance/financial support would be the most helpful facilitator of clinical trial enrollment, and 88% reported their physician's advice would most influence their decision to participate.
conclusionData from this study suggest which specific strategies should be prioritized in future implementation studies to improve enrollment in lymphoma clinical trials and achieve disease population representation.
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.