ReviewCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Digital Tools and Strategies for Engaging Patients in Cancer Clinical Trials.
Review in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital tools are increasingly used to support patient engagement in cancer clinical trials, particularly for recruitment, education, and electronic consent. As these tools become more integrated into clinical research workflows, there is growing recognition that they shape how patients perceive, interpret, and act on trial-related information as they navigate complex decisions under emotional and cognitive strain. Drawing on research in health communication, behavioral science, and patient-centered design, we provide a narrative mini review of current digital approaches such as websites, mobile applications, social media, patient portals, e-consent platforms, and emerging AI-driven tools to identify key challenges related to patients' access and experience. We offer a synthesis of evidence-based design strategies shown to support decision-making, reduce cognitive and emotional burdens, foster trust, and complement, rather than replace, human interaction. We also discuss considerations for implementation and evaluation studies, emphasizing the importance of assessing patient understanding, decisional confidence, retention, and equity alongside traditional enrollment metrics. We conclude by outlining future directions for theory-informed, co-designed digital communication strategies that support meaningful participation in cancer clinical research.
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.