ArticleBMC health services research2026
Evaluating the user experience of the Beacon Decision Support System: a mixed-methods study of a digital platform for equity-oriented cancer care.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Beacon Decision Support System (DSS) is a digital platform developed under the EU-funded BEACON project to address disparities in cancer care across Europe. It aims to provide patients, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers with centralized, validated access to oncology information. To evaluate the usability and acceptability of the Beacon DSS, we used a complementary qualitative and quantitative evaluation consisting of two independent studies aimed at informing the iterative development of a patient-centered and stakeholder-relevant tool. Study 1 involved qualitative interviews with 10 participants (five cancer patients and five oncology professionals/researchers) to assess usability, barriers, and expectations. Study 2 used a quantitative survey administered to 45 stakeholders, combining the System Usability Scale (SUS) and AttrakDiff Mini to assess functional and experiential aspects of usability. Patients appreciated the DSS's visual clarity but reported technical issues such as app freezing and language accessibility, which were promptly resolved and did not persist in subsequent use. Professionals valued resource credibility but noted limitations in search specificity and data coverage. SUS scores (M = 60.3, SD = 9.6) indicated acceptable usability. AttrakDiff results showed strong scores for pragmatic quality and overall attractiveness, but more modest scores for hedonic quality. Feedback led to enhancements, including better filtering, glossary links, language geolocation, and onboarding tutorials. The Beacon DSS is perceived as a useful and credible tool for improving oncology navigation. Addressing usability challenges, particularly in personalization, search logic, and content accessibility, may further enhance the platform's usefulness and accessibility for a broad range of users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42919333What 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.