Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41259797›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2025

Knowledge of Clinical Trials Among US Cancer Survivors: Cross-Sectional Study of HINTS-SEER Data.

Aisha Tene Langford, Katrina Renee Ellis, Nancy Buderer, Navreet Singh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2025. 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

4 authors.

Aisha Tene LangfordDepartment of Family Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Wayne State University, 6135 Woodward Ave, Detroit, MI, 48111, United States, 1 3135775644.ORCID 0000-0003-1758-691X
Katrina Renee EllisUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1709-3912
Nancy BudererNancy Buderer Consulting, LLC, Oak Harbor, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8187-2710
Navreet SinghDepartment of Family Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Wayne State University, 6135 Woodward Ave, Detroit, MI, 48111, United States, 1 3135775644.ORCID 0009-0004-2157-3497

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Clinical trials are important for all stages of the cancer control continuum, including cancer survivorship. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate correlates of general clinical trial knowledge among US adult cancer survivors. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the National Cancer Institute's 2021 Health Information National Trends Survey. Cancer survivors were recruited from 3 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries: Iowa Cancer Registry, Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry, and New Mexico Tumor Registry. Data collection occurred from January 11 to August 20, 2021. Eligible participants had a cancer diagnosis prior to 2018. The primary outcome was self-reported knowledge of clinical trials, assessed by the question: "How would you describe your level of knowledge about clinical trials?" Responses were dichotomized as knowing "a lot" or "a little bit" versus "don't know anything." Independent variables included sociodemographic characteristics, patient-centered communication, health information seeking (including watching health-related videos on YouTube), and confidence in obtaining cancer-related information. We used survey-weighted logistic regression to examine univariable and multivariable associations with clinical trial knowledge. A total of 2 a priori hypotheses were specified: (1) cancer survivors with a higher perceived quality of patient-centered communication would have greater knowledge of clinical trials than those with a lower perceived quality of patient-centered communication and (2) cancer survivors who were "completely confident" in their ability to obtain cancer-related information would have greater knowledge of clinical trials than those less confident. Odds ratios (ORs), 95% CIs, and P values were estimated using SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA). Results: Among cancer survivors (N=1207) included in the analysis, 269 (22.3%) reported that they did not know anything about clinical trials, while 938 (77.7%) reported knowing "a lot" or "a little." Neither of the 2 a priori hypotheses was supported. In the multivariable weighted logistic regression model, greater knowledge of clinical trials was significantly associated with non-Hispanic White race compared with all other races (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.59, 4.08; P<.001), having a college degree compared with less than a college degree (OR 3.50, 95% CI 2.25, 5.46; P<.001), seeking cancer information from any source (OR 3.04, 95% CI 2.10-4.40; P<.001) compared with not, and ever watched health-related videos on YouTube (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.49-4.94; P=.002) compared with never watched. In contrast, female sex assigned at birth was associated with lower odds of clinical trial knowledge compared with male sex assigned at birth (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41-0.80; P<.001). Conclusions: Sociodemographic characteristics and health-seeking behaviors including watching health-related videos on YouTube were associated with clinical trial knowledge among cancer survivors. These findings highlight opportunities to leverage YouTube as a platform to promote clinical trial awareness and to strengthen survivors' cancer-specific information-seeking skills to improve access to clinical trial information.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsClinical Trials as TopicHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeNeoplasmsAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInformation Seeking BehaviorMaleMiddle AgedSEER ProgramUnited Statescancer survivorsclinical trials as topiccross-sectional studieshealth literacyinformation-seeking behaviorsocial mediasociodemographic factors

Identifiers

PMID41259797
PMCPMC12629625

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.