ArticleBMC cancer2026
Closing the gap of older adult recruitment to cancer clinical trials: a scoping review.
Article in BMC 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough they constitute a large proportion of those with cancer, older adults remain underrepresented in cancer clinical trials (CCTs). This scoping review aims to map the available literature regarding barriers and enablers to the recruitment of older adults to CCTs.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed/MEDLINE, C2-SPECTR Campbell Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Library from 2004 to January 2026. Records were screened by two independent reviewers. Data related to study characteristics and findings were extracted in duplicate. Original research including older adult participants (having a median/mean age of 60 years or older) with any cancer diagnosis (haematological or solid tumour), which explored factors relating to their recruitment to CCTs were eligible for inclusion.
resultsA total of 29,160 records were identified through database searches. After screening, 30 studies met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen studies investigated patients, 3 investigated patients and carers, 4 investigated physicians/oncologists or providers, 2 investigated researchers and 6 had mixed populations. Studies were conducted in the USA (n = 19), Canada (n = 4), the Netherlands (n = 2), France (n = 3), Germany (n = 1) and Ireland (n = 1). Interpersonal, intrapersonal, environmental and institutional factors were the most commonly cited factors influencing CCT participation. Notably, the caregiver perspective was underexplored, despite caregivers often being framed as integrally important for making CCT decisions. Among the factors that could be modified were the physician/patient relationship, lack of information, and mistrust. Seven studies were identified that focused on interventions to increase recruitment, with varying approaches utilised.
conclusionIntrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional and environmental factors were among the most cited influences on CCT participation in older adults. The patient-physician relationship appeared to hold substantial influence, acting to both discourage or encourage participation, with institutional factors limiting clinicians' ability to communicate about trials. Greater consideration of the opinions of carers is recommended, given their importance in supporting treatment. Identification of these factors can inform the development of future research and can provide actionable insights into how CCT teams may encourage participation of older adults. Institutional commitment will be needed to ensure equitable access to trials, with further studies examining recruitment strategies required to justify the resource-intensive nature of this effort.
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.