Reaching Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Populations in Clinical Trials

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.13962

2024-06-08

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:This survey study examines the extent to which for-profit and nonprofit or governmental clinical research sites use strategies to recruit trial participants from socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The influence of socioeconomic status on individual attitudes and experience with clinical trials

Jennifer Y Kim,Maria Florez,Emily Botto,Xoli Belgrave,Clare Grace,Ken Getz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43856-024-00586-9

2024-09-05

Abstract:Background: Characterizing perceptions of clinical trials among the socioeconomically disadvantaged is necessary for understanding how social determinants of health such as socioeconomic disparities in education and income can affect people's awareness of and exposure to clinical trials METHODS: A survey was distributed in spring 2023 among a survey taking sample stratified by demographic variables to reflect the U.S. Population: The survey assessed the socioeconomic status of the respondent and related covariates, as well as outcome measures including interest in joining a clinical trial, concerns relating to participation, and whether the respondent had previously been asked to participate. Multiple and logistic regression were used to assess the relationship between predictor and outcome variables RESULTS: Here we show the results of outcome measures regressed on main predictors related to socioeconomic status and related demographic predictors. Education, employment status, insurance coverage, and English proficiency were significant predictors of interest in clinical trial participation. Education and the presence of a healthcare professional or former clinical trial participant in the respondent's personal network were significant predictors of whether the respondent had previously been asked to participate in a clinical trial CONCLUSIONS: The results of the analysis reveal how socioeconomically vulnerable groups, including those from low income and low education groups, are being excluded in clinical research. Analyses also uncovered the impact of clinical trial social influence-the presence of having a family or friend in one's social network who participated in a clinical trial-on willingness to participate and exposure to clinical trials.
Consultations about randomised controlled trials are shorter and less in-depth for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients compared to socioeconomically advantaged patients: qualitative analysis across three trials

Mariana Popa,Bridget Young,Nikki Rousseau,Mary G. Cherry,Isobel Jenkins,Jane Cloke,Andrew Pettitt,Michael D. Jenkinson,Saiqa Ahmed,Allan R. Pemberton,Frances C. Sherratt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08216-4

IF: 2.728

2024-06-16

Trials

Abstract:Patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are underserved in randomised controlled trials, yet they experience a much greater burden of disease compared with patients from socioeconomically advantaged areas. It is crucial to make trials more inclusive to ensure that treatments and interventions are safe and effective in real-world contexts. Improving how information about trials is verbally communicated is an unexplored strategy to make trials more inclusive. This study examined how trials are communicated verbally, comparing consultations involving patients from the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged areas.

medicine, research & experimental
Promoting equity in clinical research: The role of social determinants of health

Betina Idnay,Yilu Fang,Edward Stanley,Brenda Ruotolo,Wendy K Chung,Karen Marder,Chunhua Weng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104663

Abstract:Objective: This study aims to investigate the association between social determinants of health (SDoH) and clinical research recruitment outcomes and recommends evidence-based strategies to enhance equity. Materials and methods: Data were collected from the internal clinical study manager database, clinical data warehouse, and clinical research registry. Study characteristics (e.g., study phase) and sociodemographic information were extracted. Median neighborhood income, distance from the study location, and Area Deprivation Index (ADI) were calculated. Mixed effect generalized regression was used for clustering effects and false discovery rate adjustment for multiple testing. A stratified analysis was performed to examine the impact in distinct medical departments. Results: The study sample consisted of 3,962 individuals, with a mean age of 61.5 years, 53.6 % male, 54.2 % White, and 49.1 % non-Hispanic or Latino. Study characteristics revealed a variety of protocols across different departments, with cardiology having the highest percentage of participants (46.4 %). Industry funding was the most common (74.5 %), and digital advertising and personal outreach were the main recruitment methods (58.9 % and 90.8 %). Discussion: The analysis demonstrated significant associations between participant characteristics and research participation, including biological sex, age, ethnicity, and language. The stratified analysis revealed other significant associations for recruitment strategies. SDoH is crucial to clinical research recruitment, and this study presents evidence-based solutions for equity and inclusivity. Researchers can tailor recruitment strategies to overcome barriers and increase participant diversity by identifying participant characteristics and research involvement status. Conclusion: The findings highlight the relevance of clinical research inequities and equitable representation of historically underrepresented populations. We need to improve recruitment strategies to promote diversity and inclusivity in research.
Clinical Trial Access in Diverse Populations

Tareefe Montaque,John Stewart

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.28010

2024-11-28

Journal of Surgical Oncology

Abstract:Despite the disproportionate impact of cancer on minority groups, their participation in oncologic clinical trials remains low. Contributing factors include mistrust of the medical establishment, structural barriers, and implicit bias. Strategies to improve access and representation include pragmatic trial designs, patient navigation programs, financial support, and increasing diversity among medical professionals. Addressing these issues is crucial for ensuring equitable healthcare delivery and improving outcomes for underrepresented populations in clinical research.

oncology,surgery
Disparities in clinical trial participation: Survey of patients with cancer at an academic medical center.

Katie Moreland,Melinda Butsch Kovacic,Shesh Rai,Davendra Sohal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13720

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13720 Background: This study aims to understand cancer patients' attitudes toward clinical trials and identify barriers to participation, because low participation, especially among minorities, perpetuates poor outcomes and disparities. Methods: A survey was conducted at the University of Cincinnati Cancer Center (UCCC) to assess patients' experiences and attitudes toward clinical trials, previous trial participation, and future trial interest. The pen-and-paper survey, administered by a coordinator (KM), took 5-10 minutes. Frequency tables and Chi-square tests in SAS summarized the findings. Results: From April to August 2023, a survey was offered to solid tumor patients at UCCC during their clinic visits. Participation was voluntary; 300 patients completed the survey. The cohort had 56% females and 77% Whites, with equal educational levels up to (51%) and beyond high school (49%), but with notable racial differences (Table). Index cancer diagnoses were lung (15%), head/neck (11%), breast (10%), colorectal (8%), pancreatic (8%), ovarian (6%), prostate (6%), gastroesophageal (6%), endometrial (5%), and various others (25%). Of 300 participants, only 32% had ever been asked to participate in a clinical trial; more Whites vs non-Whites; 84% chose to participate, with notable differences by race (Table). These differences were not attributable to education or sex. Of the 81 patients who chose to participate, 96% participated to gain access to new treatments, and 75% participated to contribute to research; only 11% did it for financial incentives. There were also differences by race among the 15 who declined participation (Table). Of the 203 who had never been asked to participate in a trial, 71% indicated that they would be willing to participate in the future, but with a strong sex:race interaction (Table). Nearly all (99%) indicated that they would participate to have access to new treatments; many (57%) wanted to contribute to research. Conclusions: This survey shows that many solid tumor patients are not offered clinical trials, and reveals racial disparities in patient willingness, especially among non-White men. Promisingly, there's a notable readiness among patients to join trials for treatment access and research. Efforts should focus on improving clinical trial portfolios, enhanced outreach, and target population education and trust-building. [Table: see text]

oncology
A cross-sectional survey of clinical trials knowledge, participation, and perspectives in an underserved community of Washington, DC

Cleo Whiting,Deega Omar,Sarah Millan,Andeulazia Murdock,Sara Abdel Azim,Adam Friedman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-024-02968-4

2024-05-26

Archives of Dermatological Research

Abstract:The inclusion of participants from underrepresented and underserved groups is lagging in dermatology clinical trials. Through dissemination of a pilot survey at a community skin health fair, knowledge, participation, and perspectives of clinical trials were evaluated in an urban, medically underserved community in Washington, DC. Clinical trial-related questions were derived from the Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 4. This cross-sectional survey analyzed responses from 39/55 attendees (71% response rate). Most respondents were female (23/37 [62.2%]), between the ages of 25 and 54 (19/38, [50.0%]), and self-identified as non-white (35/39 [89.7%]) with a majority self-identifying as Black (16/31 [41%]). Most respondents self-reported knowing "little" to "nothing" about clinical trials (26/35 [74.3%]), and even more were unaware of the federal resource clinicaltrials.gov (30/37 [81.1%]). Few respondents discussed clinical trials as a treatment option with their healthcare provider (8/35 [22.9%]), yet having a discussion was significantly correlated with clinical trial participation ( p = 0.0302). Self-reported level of knowledge was not significantly associated with participation in a clinical trial ( p = 0.3035). Healthcare providers were the preferred first source of clinical trial information, followed by an internet search. Respondents rarely cited mistrust or skepticism as a barrier to participation (2/34 [5.9%]). Subjective positive healthcare experiences were significantly correlated to positive expectations with clinical trial participation ( p = 0.0242). The findings of this study suggest the essential role healthcare providers, including dermatologists, play in clinical trial education and recruitment of underrepresented populations, and that patient mistrust may be present but is a rarely cited barrier to clinical trial participation.

dermatology
Bridging the Gap: Culturally Responsive Strategies for NIH Trial Recruitment

Lindsey Ross,Samuel Eberlein,Carine Khalil,So Yung Choi,Karma McKelvey,Brennan M. R. Spiegel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-024-02166-y

2024-10-31

Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities

Abstract:To enhance recruitment and participation rates of non-Hispanic Black (NHB) and Hispanic adult patients in a NIH-funded clinical trial studying an emerging health technology.

public, environmental & occupational health
The FOR US (Fostering Opportunities in Research Using Marketing Strategies) study.

Ryan Huu-Tuan Nguyen,Leslie Carnahan,Eliza Brumer Cohn,Kauthar Salum,Neha Hippalgaonkar,Tigist Mersha,Ana Williams,Robbin Block,Kent Hoskins,Vida Henderson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2023.41.16_suppl.e18577

IF: 45.3

2023-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e18577 Background: Black patients are less likely to be enrolled in clinical trials compared with White patients, resulting in reduced access to breakthrough treatments and limited understanding of treatment effect in diverse populations. Ineffective dissemination of cancer research, education, and interventions among the public contributes to cancer inequities. Dissemination rarely involves engagement with non-research audiences and end-users. Efforts to promote equity in clinical trial participation may benefit from business marketing strategies traditionally applied in the business sector. Our team is conducting community-engaged research using focus groups with Black community members and family members of cancer survivors, facilitated by a professional marketing agency to create a culturally responsive public service announcement (PSA) video to increase awareness of clinical trials among Black audiences. Methods: We will conduct 6 focus groups over two phases with: 1) social support networks of Black cancer survivors (n = 20, 2 focus groups) and 2) Black community members (n = 40, 4 focus groups) to inform the content and design of a 60 second PSA to be disseminated through media and public health outlets. Phase 1 focus groups will inform content for the PSA. Data will be triangulated with qualitative data from Black patients diagnosed with breast cancer, oncologists, clinical trial staff, and community advocates from a concurrent study. Phase 2 focus groups will garner feedback on video script and style prior to development. Content and thematic analysis approaches will identify themes and PSA recommendations. Results: Phase 1 focus groups (n = 3) are completed. We used maximum variation sampling techniques to recruit Black participants (n = 30) varied in age, geographic location, education, and gender. Themes identified include: 1) mistrust about clinical trials due to past and current experiences of racism persists but diminishes with younger respondents or those with clinical trials; 2) clinical trial trust-building was associated with transparency from medical experts, information from someone in the Black community, and stories from clinical trial participants; 3) invasive procedures (i.e., ingesting or injecting a treatment) are a big factor in weighing the costs and benefits of clinical trial participation; 4) messages that are not coercive, yet support decision-making are more credible; and 5) sharing the PSA on social media with links to primary resources was a favorable dissemination strategy. Next steps are to develop and focus group test creative content and then PSA video production. Conclusions: Applying marketing communication strategies to expand awareness about clinical trial participation among general Black audiences may directly and indirectly facilitate clinical trial participation decision-making processes among Black patients diagnosed with cancer and their support systems.

oncology
Healthcare disparities are associated with eligibility and enrollment in clinical trials in Louisiana.

Conner D Hartupee,Denise Danos,Eileen T Mederos,Augusto Ochoa,Valentine N Nfonsam,Omeed Moaven

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13728

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13728 Background: Clinical trials offer an opportunity to evaluate novel therapeutic strategies and modalities of care. Overall enrollment is low for clinical trials, but previous literature has highlighted lower rates of enrollment among underrepresented populations. A disproportionately low accrual of minority or other populations will result in reducing the ability of such clinical trials to prove general benefit to the overall population. This study aims to evaluate the population of those able or unable to qualify for and enroll in the Gulf South Clinical Trials network, a minority/underserved NCORP community site. Methods: Patient data was collected through interviews using a screening tool developed by the National Cancer Institute’s Community Oncology and Prevention Trials Research Group and active enrollment of ongoing clinical trials. Patients were interviewed regarding demographic data and tumor staging. Reason for ineligibility or non-enrollment was documented by the clinical staff. Clinical trials were categorized between Cancer-Control and Cancer Care Delivery Research (CC-CCDR) Trials and Cancer Treatment Trials from 2017 and 2023. Rates of eligibility and enrollment were compared via Fisher’s Exact tests. Results: CC-CCDR Trials had 363 participants while Cancer Treatment had 550 participants. CC-CCDR Trials resulted in 19% (n=69) of patients being ineligible with 81% (n=294) being eligible with a higher proportion of Whites (p<.001), non-rural (p = .021), low income (p=.007), private insurance (p=<.001), stage 1 tumors (p<.001), and having a genetic predisposition (p<.001) being ineligible. From the patients that were eligible, 13% (n= 39) of patients were not enrolled with 87% (n=255) of patients enrolled. Cancer Treatment Trials resulted in 23% (n=129) of ineligible patients and 76.5% (n=421) of eligible patients, with a higher proportion of low income (p=.002), private insurance (p=.035), and those not having genetic predispositions (p=.022) being ineligible. From the participants that were eligible, 20% (n=85) of patients were not enrolled with 80% (n=336) of patients enrolled, with a higher proportion of female (p= .002) patients not enrolled. Conclusions: Disparities in socioeconomic factors and female gender are associated with lower rates of eligibility and enrollment in clinical trials in community oncology settings. Future research identifying modifiable underlying factors can assist in developing strategies to improve enrollment in underserved populations.

oncology
Recruitment strategy cost and impact on minority accrual to a breast cancer prevention trial

Alexander Dew,Seema Khan,Christie Babinski,Nancy Michel,Marie Heffernan,Stefanie Stephan,Neil Jordan,Borko Jovanovic,Paula Carney,Raymond Bergan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774512471452

Abstract:Background: Recruitment of minorities to cancer prevention trials is difficult and costly. Early-phase cancer prevention trials have fewer resources to promote recruitment. Identifying cost-effective strategies that can replace or supplement traditional recruitment methods and improve minority accrual to small, early-phase cancer prevention trials are of critical importance. Purpose: To compare the costs of accrual strategies used in a small breast cancer prevention trial and assess their impact on recruitment and minority accrual. Methods: A total of 1196 potential subjects with a known recruitment source contacted study coordinators about the SOY study, a breast cancer prevention trial. Recruitment strategies for this study included recruitment from within the Northwestern University network (internal strategy), advertisements placed on public transportation (Chicago Transit Authority (CTA)), health-related events, media (print/radio/television), and direct mail. Total recruitment strategy cost included the cost of study personnel and material costs calculated from itemized receipts. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare the relative cost-effectiveness of each recruitment strategy. If a strategy was more costly and less effective than its comparator, then that strategy was considered dominated. Scenarios that were not dominated were compared. The primary effectiveness measure was the number of consents. Separate ICERs were calculated using the number of minority consents as the effectiveness measure. Results: The total cost of SOY study recruitment was US$164,585, which included the cost of materials (US$26,133) and personnel (US$138,452). The internal referral strategy was the largest source of trial contacts (748/1196; 63%), consents (107/150; 71%), and minority consents (17/34; 50%) and was the most expensive strategy (US$139,033). CTA ads generated the second largest number of trial contacts (326/1196; 27%), the most minority contacts (184/321; 57%), and 16 minority consents (16/34; 47%), at a total cost of US$15,562. The other three strategies yielded many fewer contacts and consents. The methods of health events, CTA ads, and the internal strategy showed some evidence of cost-effectiveness (ICER: US$581, US$717, and US$1524, respectively). The CTA strategy was the most cost-effective strategy for minority accrual (ICER: US$908). Limitations: Recall bias may have limited the accuracy of estimated time spent on recruitment by study personnel. Also, costs spent specifically on minority accrual were unobtainable; results may not be generalizable to other settings; and cost-effectiveness data for the methods of media, health events, and direct mail should be interpreted with caution since these methods generated few consents. Conclusions: Public transportation ads have the potential to generate numerous minority contacts and consents at a reasonable cost within an urban setting. Combined with traditional methods of recruitment, this method can lead to timelier study completion and increased minority accrual. Future research should prospectively track recruitment and costs in order to better assess the cost-effectiveness of recruitment methods used to target minority populations.
Abstract 999: Clinical trial matchmaking: Connecting sites to sponsors

Lyndsey Griffin,Latha Shivakumar,Leigh Boehmer,Savannah Dodson,Elana Plotkin,Sumanta Pal,Al B. Benson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2024-999

IF: 11.2

2024-03-24

Cancer Research

Abstract:Background: Oncology programs may encounter many challenges engaging in clinical trials. The Association of Community Cancer Center's (ACCC) Community Oncology Research Institute (ACORI) conducted a survey to gather insights on barriers to clinical trial provision and implementation, patient recruitment, and identifying resources to support cancer programs. Methods: A survey of 29 questions was administered via Qualtrics. The survey focused on research-naïve sites (i.e., sites with little to no clinical research experience). Survey recipients were identified from ACCC's membership database, and the survey was open from May 5 to October 10, 2023. One survey response was captured per program. Results: Of the 350 respondents, most were physicians, investigators, or oncology fellows (20%), directors/administrators (16%), patient navigators (12%), and APPs (12%). Responding programs were categorized as a comprehensive community cancer program (28%), community practice (26%), or academic medical center (21%). Eighty percent of respondents indicated their program currently conducts clinical research. The most common challenges included: patient recruitment (40%), limited staffing (36%), limited clinician time (32%), and lack of training in research administration and conduct (25%). The top 3 resources desired were communication about clinical research opportunities (65%), connections to clinical trial sponsors (49%), and clinical research coordinator training (41%). Conclusions: Survey results showed a clear need for improved communication regarding clinical research opportunities, connections to clinical trial sponsors, and education around clinical trial implementation. Data from this survey will be used to match sites with trial sponsors, especially sites that serve patients with cancer from under resourced geographic, socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic groups. Future efforts will seek to engage clinical trial sponsors in improving trial engagement and feasibility, workforce support, training, and clinical mentorship. Citation Format: Lyndsey Griffin, Latha Shivakumar, Leigh Boehmer, Savannah Dodson, Elana Plotkin, Sumanta Pal, Al B. Benson. Clinical trial matchmaking: Connecting sites to sponsors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular s); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl) nr 999.

oncology
Best strategies to recruit and enroll elderly Blacks into clinical and biomedical research

Lennox A Graham,Julius Ngwa,Oyonumo Ntekim,Oludolapo Ogunlana,Saba Wolday,Steven Johnson,Megan Johnson,Chimene Castor,Thomas V Fungwe,Thomas O Obisesan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S130112

2017-12-22

Abstract:Background: Historically, Blacks have been disproportionately underrepresented in clinical trials. Outcomes associated with low Blacks' participation in research include poor understanding of the predictors and treatment of the disease, increasing health disparities, poor health equity, and suboptimal wellness of the nation as a whole. To address this gap in research participation, we analyzed our recruitment data to identify the most effective strategies for enrolling older Blacks in clinical trials. Methods: Data used in these analyses were obtained from 3,266 potential volunteers, ages 50 or older, who completed a Mini-Mental State Exam as part of recruitment and screening for various clinical studies on Alzheimer's disease. In order to determine the most effective strategies for engaging Blacks in clinical research, we used tests of proportion to assess significant differences in recruitment sources, counts, and percentages for optimal recruitment strategies by gender. Finally, we employed regression analyses to confirm our findings. Results: Of the total 3,266 screened, 2,830 Black volunteers were identified for further analysis. Overall, more women than men (73.8% vs 26.2%) participated in our recruitment activities. However, a significantly higher proportion of men than women were engaged through family (3.86% vs 1.30%, p=0.0004) and referral sources (5.89% vs 2.59%, p=0.0005). Compared to other sources for recruitment, we encountered a higher proportion of volunteers at health fairs (42.95%), and through advertisements (14.97%). In our sample, years of education and age did not appear to influence the likelihood of an encounter, screening, and potential participation. Conclusion: Our findings indicate Black men and women in our sample were predominantly recruited from health fairs and through advertisements tailored to their health needs and interests. Conversely, we mostly engaged Black men through family referrals and persons known to them, indicating a need for trust in their decision to engage study personnel and/or participate in clinical trials.
Recruiting Black and White patients to a behavioral oncology clinical trial: Lessons from the DISCO trial.

Lauren M. Hamel,Eyouab Tadesse,Roman Grossi,Lorna Mabunda,Teneisha Austin,David W. Dougherty,Keri Angers,Karis Tutuska,Mai Daigle,Susan Eggly

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13684

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13684 Background: Clinical trials are often terminated due to insufficient accrual, with only about 6% of patients enrolling into a trial. Trial enrollment rates are even lower for Black patients. In 2021, we began recruitment for a clinic-based behavioral trial testing the effectiveness of a health equity communication intervention designed to address patient cancer treatment cost concerns. This study involves patients and providers completing surveys before and after a video-recorded clinical interaction. We are implementing this study at a NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center in Detroit, Michigan, a city with a majority Black population. Based on findings that most patients agree to participate in a trial if they are eligible and invited, we set a sample goal of 50% Black and 50% White patients. We used evidence-based strategies and lessons from our previous work, including having a diverse staff and building trusting relationships with provider and patient participants. As we begin the final year of recruitment, we consider what suggestions we can offer teams seeking to recruit a diverse patient sample to trials. Methods: We based our strategies on evidence that racially concordant (same racial group) clinical dyads have better communication quality than racially discordant (different racial group) dyads, and that medical mistrust is greater among Black patients than among White patients. First, we hired and trained a team that includes Black and White members, and encouraged them to take leadership roles. Second, we built trust with providers, staff, and patients. Procedures involve discussing the study with providers and their staff, recruiting providers as participants, and screening patients for eligibility. We recruit patients in-person in the clinic or by phone. Patients who provide oral consent are later met in person to collect written consent. Results: We achieved a consent rate of 52% across 4 clinics; our sample includes 86 (61%) Black patients and 55 (39%) White patients, which reflects the demographics of our patient population. We attribute our success to critical aspects of our protocol. First, recruitment of providers as participants helps capture the attention of and builds trust with patients. Second, we have a flexible recruitment approach. Once potential participants are screened, we can approach them in person or by phone. Third, our team composition reflects the patient population we hope to recruit. Last, we have the support of a diverse group of medical student team members in terms of race, gender, and age who provide additional recruitment support. Conclusions: Our strategies, based on scientific literature, helped achieve our goal of recruiting a sample that reflects racial diversity in our patient population. These and similar strategies can be adapted for other trials with the goal of achieving clinical trial recruitment equity. Clinical trial information: NCT04766190 .

oncology
Outreach to diversify clinical trial participation: A randomized recruitment study

Susan D Brown,Paula N Partee,Juanran Feng,Charles P Quesenberry,Monique M Hedderson,Samantha F Ehrlich,Michaela Kiernan,Assiamira Ferrara

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774514568125

2015-02-02

Clinical Trials

Abstract:Background/Aims Racial and ethnic minorities remain underrepresented in clinical research, yet few recruitment strategies have been rigorously evaluated. Methods We experimentally tested whether targeted recruitment letters acknowledging diabetes health disparities and health risks specific to recipients’ racial/ethnic group improved two metrics of trial participation: willingness to be screened and enrollment. This experiment was efficiently nested within a randomized clinical trial examining a preventive lifestyle intervention among women at high risk for diabetes. Pregnant women with gestational diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance ( N = 445) were randomized to receive a targeted recruitment letter with health risk information specific to their racial/ethnic group ( n = 216), or a standard letter with risk information for the general population ( n = 229). All letters were bilingual in English and Spanish. Results The targeted as compared to the standard letter did not improve screening or enrollment rates overall or within separate racial/ethnic groups. Among Latina women who preferred Spanish, the targeted letter showed trends for improved screening (66.7% vs 33.3%, p = .06) and enrollment rates (38.9% vs 13.3%, p = .13). In contrast, among Latina women who preferred English, the targeted letter significantly lowered screening (29.6% vs 57.1%, p = .04) and showed trends for lowered enrollment rates (25.9% vs 50.0%, p = .07). Conclusion Results from this randomized study appear to suggest that recruitment letters with diabetes health risk information targeted to recipients’ race/ethnicity may improve one metric of clinical trial participation among Latina women who prefer Spanish, but not English. Larger experimental studies, incorporating input from diverse participant stakeholders, are needed to develop evidence-based minority recruitment strategies.

medicine, research & experimental
Clinical Trials for Special Populations: Children, Older Adults, and Rare Diseases

Robert M. Jacobson,Robert J. Pignolo,Konstantinos N. Lazaridis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2023.03.003

IF: 11.104

2024-02-02

Mayo Clinic Proceedings

Abstract:Research cannot maximize population health unless it improves health for all members of the public, including special populations such as children, older adults, and people living with rare diseases. Each of these categories require special considerations when planning and performing clinical trials , and common threads of ethical conduct of research in vulnerable populations appear throughout. In this review, definitions of each of the three categories of special population (children, older adults, and rare diseases) are discussed in terms of US research regulations, the unique challenges to conducting clinical trials for these special populations, critical ethical issues, and opportunities for innovative ways to design and operationalize clinical trials in special populations. Additional critical attention is focused on factors that influence the generalizability of study results to reduce health disparities, as well as the importance of community engagement and advocacy groups that can help to educate potential trial participants of the benefits of clinical trial participation.

medicine, general & internal
Community Engagement Strategies for Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Populations

Folakemi T. Odedina,Mark L. Wieland,Kim Barbel-Johnson,Jennifer M. Crook

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2023.07.015

IF: 11.104

2024-01-04

Mayo Clinic Proceedings

Abstract:The representation of racial and ethnic minority populations in clinical trials continues to be a challenge despite mandates, good intentions, and concerted efforts by funding agencies, regulatory bodies, and researchers to close the clinical trials gap. A lack of diversity in research results in both continued disparities and poorer health outcomes. It is thus imperative that investigators understand and effectively address the challenges of clinical trials participation by underrepresented populations. In this paper, we expound on best practices for participatory research by clearly defining the community, highlighting the importance of proper identification and engagement of strong community partners, and exploring patient- and provider-level barriers and facilitators that require consideration. A clearer understanding of the balance of power between researchers and community partners is needed for any approach that addresses clinical trials representation. Unintended biases in study design and methods may continue to prevent racial and ethnic minority participants from taking part, and significant organizational changes are necessary for efficient and transparent relationships. Comprehensive community engagement in research includes dissemination of clinical trial results within and in partnership with community partners. Through careful deliberation and honest reflection, investigators, institutions, and community partners can develop the tailored blueprints of research collaborations essential for true equity in clinical trials.

medicine, general & internal
Psychosocial factors that influence a woman's decision to enroll in a clinical trial – implications on how to improve clinical trial enrollment among Black women

Uma Markan,Kaysee Baker,Caitlin Eggleston,Sally B Cheston,Pranshu Mohindra,Elizabeth Nichols,Sarah McAvoy,Søren M Bentzen,Melissa A L Vyfhuis,Sally B. Cheston,Søren M. Bentzen,Melissa A.L. Vyfhuis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.02.017

IF: 8.013

2024-02-01

International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

Abstract:PURPOSE: Black women with breast cancer often present with more aggressive disease when compared to other races, contributing to an increased risk of cancer mortality. Despite this inequity, Black women remain severely underrepresented in breast cancer clinical trials. We aim to characterize factors that influence a woman's decision to enroll in a clinical trial, with the goal of identifying clinical interventions to aid in the recruitment of vulnerable groups.METHODS AND MATERIALS: A cross-sectional, descriptive study was conducted using a questionnaire adapted from two pre-validated surveys investigating factors influencing clinical trial enrollment. The survey was administered to women with curable breast cancer during a single follow-up visit at four different sites within a university medical system where all patients are screened for clinical trial eligibility. Chi-square tests and Mann-Whitney U test were used to assess associations or differences between the populations.RESULTS: One hundred ninety-four out of 209 women completed the survey, giving a compliance rate of 93%. Twenty-six percent of women self-identified as Black, most women were located at community sites (67.1%), diagnosed with early-stage disease (I: 57.7%, II: 29.4%), and 81% of women had some collegiate level education. Black women were younger at diagnosis (p=0.005), less likely to be married (p=0.012), but more often lived with family members (p=0.003) and had a lower median income (p<0.001). On the survey, Black women were less likely to trust their care team (p=0.032), more likely to believe that research ultimately harms minorities (p<0.001) and had a stronger belief in God's will determining illness and wellness (p<0.001). Recurring themes of trust in the healthcare team, patient education and advancement of cancer treatments were discussed in the focus groups.CONCLUSION: Failure to offer clinical trials and mistrust in research institutions may pose the greatest hindrances to the enrollment of Black women on to clinical trials. Empowering women through education and fostering trustworthy relationships can encourage greater clinical trial participation.

oncology,radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Inclusion of special populations in clinical research: important considerations and guidelines

Stuart S Winter,Janet M Page-Reeves,Kimberly A Page,Emily Haozous,Angelica Solares,Carla Nicole Cordova,Richard S Larson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18053/jctres.04.201801.003

2018-01-01

Journal of Clinical and Translational Research

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Trials that involve human participants call for experiments or observations that are performed in a clinical research setting. Currently, there are over 16,000 clinical trials open in the United States. Despite continuing efforts to include "special populations" in clinical trials, there are gaps in participation for people who are either minors or elderly adults, are from historically under-represented minorities, or live in rural communities. The inclusion of these special populations in clinical trials research is essential for conclusions that benefit all populations. Data suggest that study partic-ipation rates for special populations have fallen to levels that could endanger the successful performance of some types of research. This is particularly concerning in the 21st century, where demographic trends in the United States continue to shift towards an older and Hispanic population with fewer rural dwellers. Trends in New Mexico and other minority-majority states mirror many of these shifts.RELEVANCE FOR PATIENTS: In this review, we highlight improvement strategies for enhanced clinical trial participation by members of special populations. Key drivers for disparate clinical trials participation and outcomes often include differences in genetics, physiology, and perceptions of mistrust towards researchers. To overcome these barriers, we focus on best practices in recruitment strategies from the perspectives of the participants, the researchers and the institutions that support clinical trials.
Uncovering key clinical trial features influencing recruitment

Betina Idnay,Yilu Fang,Alex Butler,Joyce Moran,Ziran Li,Junghwan Lee,Casey Ta,Cong Liu,Chi Yuan,Huanyao Chen,Edward Stanley,George Hripcsak,Elaine Larson,Karen Marder,Wendy Chung,Brenda Ruotolo,Chunhua Weng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2023.623

2023-09-04

Abstract:Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCT) are the foundation for medical advances, but participant recruitment remains a persistent barrier to their success. This retrospective data analysis aims to (1) identify clinical trial features associated with successful participant recruitment measured by accrual percentage and (2) compare the characteristics of the RCTs by assessing the most and least successful recruitment, which are indicated by varying thresholds of accrual percentage such as ≥ 90% vs ≤ 10%, ≥ 80% vs ≤ 20%, and ≥ 70% vs ≤ 30%. Methods: Data from the internal research registry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and Aggregated Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov were collected for 393 randomized interventional treatment studies closed to further enrollment. We compared two regularized linear regression and six tree-based machine learning models for accrual percentage (i.e., reported accrual to date divided by the target accrual) prediction. The outperforming model and Tree SHapley Additive exPlanations were used for feature importance analysis for participant recruitment. The identified features were compared between the two subgroups. Results: CatBoost regressor outperformed the others. Key features positively associated with recruitment success, as measured by accrual percentage, include government funding and compensation. Meanwhile, cancer research and non-conventional recruitment methods (e.g., websites) are negatively associated with recruitment success. Statistically significant subgroup differences (corrected p-value < .05) were found in 15 of the top 30 most important features. Conclusion: This multi-source retrospective study highlighted key features influencing RCT participant recruitment, offering actionable steps for improvement, including flexible recruitment infrastructure and appropriate participant compensation.
Analysis and Optimization of Equitable US Cancer Clinical Trial Center Access by Travel Time

Hassal Lee,Alexander Shakeel Bates,Shawneequa Callier,Michael Chan,Nyasha Chambwe,Andrea Marshall,Mary Beth Terry,Karen Winkfield,Tobias Janowitz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.7314

IF: 33.006

2024-03-21

JAMA Oncology

Abstract:Importance Racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are currently underrepresented in clinical trials. Data-driven, quantitative analyses and strategies are required to help address this inequity. Objective To systematically analyze the geographical distribution of self-identified racial and socioeconomic demographics within commuting distance to cancer clinical trial centers and other hospitals in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants This longitudinal quantitative study used data from the US Census 2020 Decennial and American community survey (which collects data from all US residents), OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, National Trial registry, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data. Statistical analyses were performed on data collected between 2006 and 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures Population distributions of socioeconomic deprivation indices and self-identified race within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute 1-way driving commute times from US cancer trial sites. Map overlay of high deprivation index and high diversity areas with existing hospitals, existing major cancer trial centers, and commuting distance to the closest cancer trial center. Results The 78 major US cancer trial centers that are involved in 94% of all US cancer trials and included in this study were found to be located in areas with socioeconomically more affluent populations with higher proportions of self-identified White individuals (+10.1% unpaired mean difference; 95% CI, +6.8% to +13.7%) compared with the national average. The top 10th percentile of all US hospitals has catchment populations with a range of absolute sum difference from 2.4% to 35% from one-third each of Asian/multiracial/other (Asian alone, American Indian or Alaska Native alone, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander alone, some other race alone, population of 2 or more races), Black or African American, and White populations. Currently available data are sufficient to identify diverse census tracks within preset commuting times (30, 60, or 120 minutes) from all hospitals in the US (N = 7623). Maps are presented for each US city above 500 000 inhabitants, which display all prospective hospitals and major cancer trial sites within commutable distance to racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Conclusion and Relevance This study identified biases in the sociodemographics of populations living within commuting distance to US-based cancer trial sites and enables the determination of more equitably commutable prospective satellite hospital sites that could be mobilized for enhanced racial and socioeconomic representation in clinical trials. The maps generated in this work may inform the design of future clinical trials or investigations in enrollment and retention strategies for clinical trials; however, other recruitment barriers still need to be addressed to ensure racial and socioeconomic demographics within the geographical vicinity of a clinical site can translate to equitable trial participant representation.

oncology

Reaching Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Populations in Clinical Trials

The influence of socioeconomic status on individual attitudes and experience with clinical trials

Consultations about randomised controlled trials are shorter and less in-depth for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients compared to socioeconomically advantaged patients: qualitative analysis across three trials

Promoting equity in clinical research: The role of social determinants of health

Clinical Trial Access in Diverse Populations

Disparities in clinical trial participation: Survey of patients with cancer at an academic medical center.

A cross-sectional survey of clinical trials knowledge, participation, and perspectives in an underserved community of Washington, DC

Bridging the Gap: Culturally Responsive Strategies for NIH Trial Recruitment

The FOR US (Fostering Opportunities in Research Using Marketing Strategies) study.

Healthcare disparities are associated with eligibility and enrollment in clinical trials in Louisiana.

Recruitment strategy cost and impact on minority accrual to a breast cancer prevention trial

Abstract 999: Clinical trial matchmaking: Connecting sites to sponsors

Best strategies to recruit and enroll elderly Blacks into clinical and biomedical research

Recruiting Black and White patients to a behavioral oncology clinical trial: Lessons from the DISCO trial.

Outreach to diversify clinical trial participation: A randomized recruitment study

Clinical Trials for Special Populations: Children, Older Adults, and Rare Diseases

Community Engagement Strategies for Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Populations

Psychosocial factors that influence a woman's decision to enroll in a clinical trial – implications on how to improve clinical trial enrollment among Black women

Inclusion of special populations in clinical research: important considerations and guidelines

Uncovering key clinical trial features influencing recruitment

Analysis and Optimization of Equitable US Cancer Clinical Trial Center Access by Travel Time