ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Access to innovation in oncology from patients' perspectives: a qualitative systematic review.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Access to innovation in oncology is commonly examined from technical, organisational, or economic perspectives, yet less is known about how patients experience access along cancer care pathways. This study synthesised qualitative evidence on adult patients' experiences of accessing innovation. Methods: We conducted a qualitative systematic review between Sept 1 and Oct 24, 2025, using the Joanna Briggs Institute meta-aggregation approach. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cairn.info, and OpenEdition were searched. Eligible studies reported adult patients' experiences of access to innovation in oncology. Findings were appraised, grouped by similarity in meaning, and aggregated into synthesised findings. Confidence was assessed using the ConQual approach. This review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD420251046315. Findings: 20 studies involving 306 patients were included. We identified 209 findings, grouped into 13 categories and four synthesised findings. Access to innovation was described as depending on accessible information, continuity of care, conditions supporting self-management, and the availability of spaces not centred on disease. Interpretation: Access to innovation extends beyond availability or eligibility. It emerges as a dynamic process shaped by time, care relationships, personal resources, and organisational context. Aligning innovation with patients' lived experiences may support more equitable access. Funding: The Integrated Cancer Research Centre (SIRIC) InsiTu: Insights into Cancer: From Inflammation to Tumour.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.