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

Background: Clinical trial participation in the United States remains suboptimal, and limited provider 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 real-world usability of this platform among oncology providers in a large community cancer network. Methods: Ten oncology providers completed a standardized 30-minute guided session using the platform, followed by a 30-minute semi-structured interview and a 10-item modified Mobile Health App Usability Questionnaire (mMAUQ; Likert scale, 1-7; score ≥5 defined as favorable). During the guided session, participants were asked to complete standardized trial-search, eligibility-review, and summary-review tasks that reflect typical point-of-care use. Quantitative results were summarized descriptively. Qualitative data were analyzed using grounded-theory and interpreted through the PACMAD usability model. Results: Usability ratings were consistently high (overall mean score, 6.8). All participants reported favorable usability and indicated willingness to recommend the tool to colleagues. Mean scores were 6.9 for ease of navigation, 6.9 for learnability, and 6.8 for usefulness in supporting trial-referral discussions. Qualitative findings mirrored quantitative results: providers identified rapid access to eligibility criteria for prescreening during time-limited visits as the most clinically valuable feature and described the tool as intuitive, easy to recall, and cognitively light, with minimal technical concerns. Suggested refinements focused on workflow integration, including interoperability with clinical systems and potential ambient support in 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. Providers reported that rapid access to eligibility criteria supported prescreening and gave them enough information to discuss trials with patients during routine care. These findings suggest that the practical integration of trial knowledge into time-limited clinical encounters-beyond trial matching alone-may be a critical determinant of whether digital clinical trial applications translate into 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.