Real-world usability of a clinical trial knowledge platform in a community cancer network.

Abstract

e13712 Background: Clinical trial participation in the United States remains suboptimal, and limited point-of-care trial awareness contributes to missed opportunities for enrollment. Although public registries are comprehensive, they are not optimized for rapid use during clinical encounters. A clinical trial knowledge platform that consolidates protocol information, surfaces eligibility criteria, and generates concise AI-assisted summaries was previously evaluated at a comprehensive cancer center and demonstrated high feasibility and user engagement. We assessed the real-world usability of this platform in a large community cancer network. Methods: A mixed-methods usability evaluation was conducted, including 13 semi-structured interviews and 33 usability surveys. Thirteen participants completed a standardized 30-minute guided session using the platform, followed by a 30-minute interview, during which they performed trial-search, eligibility-review, and summary-review tasks reflecting typical point-of-care use. All participants completed a 10-item modified Mobile Health App Usability Questionnaire (mMAUQ; Likert scale 1–7; favorable ≥5). Quantitative results were summarized descriptively. Qualitative data were analyzed using grounded-theory and interpreted through the PACMAD usability model. Results: Usability scores were consistently high across core domains, including ease of navigation, learnability, interface clarity, and rapid access to relevant trial information (mean scores 6.5–6.7). Participants reported strong perceived clinical utility—supporting trial discussions, referral awareness, and willingness to recommend the tool—with workflow integration emerging as the primary area for further optimization (mean 5.9). Qualitative findings aligned with quantitative results: participants identified rapid access to eligibility criteria for prescreening during time-limited visits as the most clinically valuable feature and described the platform as intuitive, easy to recall, and cognitively light. Suggested refinements focused on workflow integration, including interoperability with clinical systems and potential ambient support during patient encounters. Conclusions: In a community oncology setting—where limited access to trial information can exacerbate disparities in enrollment—a clinical trial knowledge platform demonstrated excellent usability and strong perceived clinical utility. Findings suggest that practical integration of trial knowledge into time-limited clinical encounters—beyond trial matching alone—may be a critical determinant of whether digital clinical trial tools translate into provider behavior change and increased participation in research. Evaluation of the platform’s effect on trial accrual and equitable access to research opportunities across diverse care environments is underway.