Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42531166›Full record

ReviewCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center

Digital Tools and Strategies for Engaging Patients in Cancer Clinical Trials.

Aurora Occa, Jerod L Stapleton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Aurora OccaDepartment of Communication, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5311-144X
Jerod L StapletonUniversity of Kentucky, College of Public Health, Markey Cancer Center, Lexington, KY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical Trials as TopicNeoplasmsPatient ParticipationDecision MakingDigital HealthDigital MediaHumansclinical trialscommunicationdecision makingdigital toolsstrategy

Identifiers

PMID42531166
PMCPMC13424931

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.