Recruiting minorities where they receive care: Institutional barriers to cancer clinical trials recruitment in a safety-net hospital

Recruitment practices and the politics of inclusion in cancer clinical trials

Since the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993, researchers with federal funding have been required to include "minorities and women" in their clinical trials, and inclusion in research has come to be seen as an important strategy for reducing health disparities. On the basis of ethnographic research in oncology clinics in an academic medical center and a public hospital over a period of two years, this article examines how the NIH inclusion mandate is playing out in the context of oncology clinical trials. We argue that although individual patients are recruited to particular trials by individual providers, recruitment processes are shaped by the structural inequities in the U.S. health care system that create differential access to medical facilities with different and unequal research infrastructures. Given the heterogeneity of clinical trials, research infrastructures, and the U.S. health care system, the meanings of inclusion in research are multiple, and inclusion by itself does not ensure equity.

Unequal burden of disease, unequal participation in clinical trials: solutions from African American and Latino community members

African Americans and Latinos are underrepresented in clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to elicit solutions to participation barriers from African Americans and Latinos. Fifty-seven adults (32 African Americans, 25 Latinos) ages 50 years and older participated. The Institute of Medicine's Unequal Treatment conceptual framework was used. Six racially/ ethnically homogenous focus groups were conducted at five sites in three counties. Themes within groups and cross-cutting themes were identified. The NVIVO program was used for data classification. The data were reviewed for final coding and consensus. Shared solutions included addressing costs, recruiting in community contexts, conducting community and individualized patient education, and sharing patient safety information. Participants were unanimously in favor of clinical trials navigation recruitment interventions. Solutions specific to African Americans included diversifying research teams, recognizing past research abuses, and increasing community trust. Solutions specific to Latinos included providing low-literacy materials, providing Spanish-speaking clinicians and advocates, and clarifying that immigration status would neither be documented nor prevent participation. Solutions from African Americans and Latinos reflect their cultural backgrounds and historical experiences. The results suggest the importance of developing a tailored, barriers-focused navigation intervention to improve participation among diverse racial and ethnic populations.

Effort required in eligibility screening for clinical trials

PURPOSE

Determining eligibility for a clinical trial (CT) typically requires a lengthy manual review of data for a single evaluation. The cost associated with eligibility screening is typically not compensated through contracts supporting CTs.

METHODS

We used a real-time tracking system that captures CT evaluations and provides information on evaluation outcomes and time spent on each eligibility screening by research staff. Using these data, we describe the effort and costs of eligibility screening overall and per enrolled patient for cancer CTs. The study sample included all completed eligibility assessment (evaluation) records for the 18-month study period. We used generalized multinomial modeling to predict evaluation outcomes and then used the resulting parameter coefficients to estimate the effort associated with each participant, adjusted for probability of being enrolled. From these data, we calculated cost associated with eligibility screening.

RESULTS

We found substantial variation in attributed cost by study type and phase. The cost of eligibility screening ranged by study phase from $129.15 to $336.48 per enrolled patient. The estimated annual cost of screening was more than $90,000.

CONCLUSION

This study provides results based on prospectively captured effort to estimate the largely nonreimbursed costs of eligibility screening and suggests that screening can be a significant financial burden to an institution. Centers performing CTs may need to acknowledge the differences in screening costs for different study types when negotiating contracts with funding organizations. Information such as that captured here could support such negotiations to reduce the gap between reimbursed and nonreimbursed costs.

Barriers to therapeutic clinical trials enrollment: differences between African-American and white cancer patients identified at the time of eligibility assessment

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials (CTs) are the mechanism by which research is translated into standards of care. Low recruitment among underserved and minority populations may result in inequity in access to the latest technology and treatments, compromise the generalizability, and lead to failure in identification of important positive or negative treatment effects among under-represented populations.

METHODS

Data were collected over a 39-month period on patient eligibility for available therapeutic cancer CTs. Reasons for ineligibility and refusal were collected. The data were captured using an automated software tool for tracking eligibility pre-enrollment. We examined characteristics associated with being evaluated for a trial, and reasons for ineligibility and refusal, overall and by patient race.

RESULTS

African-Americans (AAs) were more likely than Whites to be ineligible (odds ratio, (OR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.0-1.58) and if eligible, to refuse participation (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.27-2.52), even after adjusting for insurance, age, gender, study phase, and cancer type. White patients were more likely to be ineligible due to study-specific or cancer characteristics. AAs were more likely to be ineligible due to mental status or perceived noncompliance. Whites were more likely to refuse due to extra burden, due to concerns with randomization and toxicity, or because they express a positive treatment preference. AAs were more likely to refuse because they were not interested in CTs, because of family pressures, or they felt overwhelmed (NS)).

DISCUSSION

This study is the first to directly compare ineligibility and refusal rates and reasons captured prospectively in AA and White cancer patients. The data are consistent with earlier studies that indicated that AA patients more often are deemed ineligible and, when eligible, more often refuse participation. However, differences in reasons for ineligibility and refusal by race have implications for a cancer center to participate in CTs appropriate for the population of patients served. On a broader scale, consideration should be given to modifying eligibility criteria and other design aspects to permit broader participation of minority and other underserved groups.

Assessing the awareness of and willingness to participate in cancer clinical trials among immigrant Latinos

Clinical trials are considered the gold standard of evidence about the efficacy of cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment interventions. A paucity of data exists on determinants of clinical trial participation in the growing US Latino population despite poor cancer outcomes in this group. This study seeks to describe correlates of awareness of and willingness to participate in clinical trials among largely Central, North, and South American Latinos using safety-net clinics. Between June 2007 and November 2008, we conducted an interviewer-administered, Spanish-language cross-sectional survey (n = 944). Logistic regression was used to assess effects of health information sources and psychosocial variables on awareness of and intention to participate in clinical trials. Analyses were completed in spring 2010. While only 48% knew what a clinical trial was, when explained, 65% indicated a willingness to participate. Providers were the most common source of health information. Use of Internet for health information, trust in health information, and higher education each independently increased the odds of clinical trial awareness, but obtaining information from providers did not. Contacting the Cancer Information Service and psychosocial factors were each independently associated with intent to join a clinical trial, while demographic factors were not. Information channels such as the Internet may be effective in conveying clinical trial information to Latinos. Providers being cited as the most common source of health information but not being associated with knowledge about or intent to participate in trials suggests a missed opportunity for communication to this population.

Developing partnerships and recruiting dyads for a prostate cancer informed decision making program: lessons learned from a community-academic-clinical team

Prostate cancer (PrCA) is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer among men. PrCA mortality in African-American (AA) men in South Carolina is ~50% higher than for AAs in the U.S as a whole. AA men also have low rates of participation in cancer research. This paper describes partnership development and recruitment efforts of a Community-Academic-Clinical research team for a PrCA education intervention with AA men and women that was designed to address the discordance between high rates of PrCA mortality and limited participation in cancer research. Guided by Vesey's framework on recruitment and retention of minority groups in research, recruitment strategies were selected and implemented following multiple brainstorming sessions with partners having established community relationships. Based on findings from these sessions culturally appropriate strategies are recommended for recruiting AA men and women for PrCA education research. Community-based research recruitment challenges and lessons learned are presented.

Challenging assumptions about minority participation in US clinical research

Although extensive research addresses minorities' low participation in clinical research, most focuses almost exclusively on therapeutic trials. The existing literature might mask important issues concerning minorities' participation in clinical trials, and minorities might actually be overrepresented in phase I safety studies that require the participation of healthy volunteers. It is critical to consider the entire spectrum of clinical research when discussing the participation of disenfranchised groups; the literature on minorities' distrust, poor access, and other barriers to trial participation needs reexamination. Minority participation in clinical trials is an important topic in public health discussions because this representation touches on issues of equality and the elimination of disparities, which are core values of the field.

Increasing accrual in cancer clinical trials with a focus on minority enrollment: The William Beaumont Hospital Community Clinical Oncology Program Experience

BACKGROUND

The authors reviewed changes in accrual to cancer clinical trials over the last 2 decades at their institution with a focus on minority participation after the implementation of a community clinical oncology program (CCOP) and an aggressive, education-orientated minority outreach program (MOP).

METHODS

Data on patient enrollment in clinical trials for the years 1988 to 2010 was obtained from the William Beaumont Hospital (WBH) Cancer Clinical Trials Office. The type and number of cancers diagnosed and treated during the same period were obtained from the WBH tumor registry data. The MOP was initiated in the fall of 2003 with a focus on culture-specific cancer education.

RESULTS

With the development of the CCOP, clinical trials accrual increased significantly by 10-fold (P = .001). The primary service area for the CCOP consistently averaged an 85% to 90% Caucasian population. During the same period, the minority population for the service area remained stable between 8.8% and 10% and did not change significantly. From 1999 to 2004, the WBH tumor registry data demonstrated that minorities represented 8.6% of cancers registered, whereas the average yearly minority enrollment from 2002 to 2004 was 5.4%. After initiation of the MOP, minority accrual doubled to 11% by 2010 with stable minority demographics.

CONCLUSIONS

The current findings support the importance of a CCOP in supporting the accrual of patients to national clinical trials and increasing access to state-of-the art research. These data also strongly support focusing additional energy and educational efforts on targeting minority representation in clinical trials.