ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2026
Connecting Patients with Clinical Trials Using Patient Navigation: A Scoping Review.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient navigation is a promising intervention to address barriers and improve access to cancer clinical trials. Although navigation has been widely studied across the cancer continuum, its role in facilitating clinical trial participation has not been systematically evaluated. This scoping review aims to identify, characterize, and synthesize evidence on patient navigation interventions designed to increase access to cancer clinical trials. Nine databases were searched for English peer-reviewed articles from inception through 5 March 2025. Two independent researchers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts and extracted data using standardized forms. The results were interpreted using descriptive statistics and collated using predetermined conceptual frameworks. Of 10,238 citations identified, 23 studies met inclusion criteria. All were conducted in North America, and five (21.7%) were randomized controlled trials. Thirteen studies (56.5%) evaluated enrollment outcomes, with mixed results. One randomized trial and two observational studies found no significant effect, while three observational studies and seven single-arm reports suggested improved enrollment. Navigation interventions most commonly included education/information provision (100%), care coordination (60.9%), and empowerment (47.8%). Navigators were primarily lay navigators (73.9%), often selected for community or lived experience; training varied widely, and only two programs reported certification. Fifteen studies (65.2%) targeted equity-deserving groups, most frequently racial and ethnic minorities, with reports of increased representation in trial enrollment. Patient navigation shows promise in improving access to cancer clinical trials, particularly for equity-deserving populations, but current evidence is limited, heterogeneous, and largely observational. Standardized definitions, rigorous trial designs, and reporting of navigator training and outcomes are needed to clarify effectiveness.
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.