1
|
Hoadley A, Fleisher L, Kenny C, Kelly PJ, Ma X, Wu J, Guerra C, Leader AE, Alhajji M, D'Avanzo P, Landau Z, Bass SB. Exploring Racial Disparities in Awareness and Perceptions of Oncology Clinical Trials: Cross-Sectional Analysis of Baseline Data From the mychoice Study. JMIR Cancer 2024; 10:e56048. [PMID: 39348891 PMCID: PMC11474127 DOI: 10.2196/56048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2024] [Revised: 04/28/2024] [Accepted: 07/30/2024] [Indexed: 10/02/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Black/African American adults are underrepresented in oncology clinical trials in the United States, despite efforts at narrowing this disparity. OBJECTIVE This study aims to explore differences in how Black/African American oncology patients perceive clinical trials to improve support for the clinical trial participation decision-making process. METHODS As part of a larger randomized controlled trial, a total of 244 adult oncology patients receiving active treatment or follow-up care completed a cross-sectional baseline survey on sociodemographic characteristics, clinical trial knowledge, health literacy, perceptions of cancer clinical trials, patient activation, patient advocacy, health care self-efficacy, decisional conflict, and clinical trial intentions. Self-reported race was dichotomized into Black/African American and non-Black/African American. As appropriate, 2-tailed t tests and chi-square tests of independence were used to examine differences between groups. RESULTS Black/African American participants had lower clinical trial knowledge (P=.006), lower health literacy (P<.001), and more medical mistrust (all P values <.05) than non-Black/African American participants. While intentions to participate in a clinical trial, if offered, did not vary between Black/African American and non-Black/African American participants, Black/African American participants indicated lower awareness of clinical trials, fewer benefits of clinical trials, and more uncertainty around clinical trial decision-making (all P values <.05). There were no differences for other variables. CONCLUSIONS Despite no significant differences in intent to participate in a clinical trial if offered and high overall trust in individual health care providers among both groups, beliefs persist about barriers to and benefits of clinical trial participation among Black/African American patients. Findings highlight specific ways that education and resources about clinical trials could be tailored to better suit the informational and decision-making needs and preferences of Black/African American oncology patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ariel Hoadley
- Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Temple University College of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Linda Fleisher
- Cancer Prevention and Control, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Cassidy Kenny
- Cancer Prevention and Control, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Patrick Ja Kelly
- Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Temple University College of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Xinrui Ma
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Temple University College of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Jingwei Wu
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Temple University College of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Carmen Guerra
- Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Amy E Leader
- Division of Population Science, Department of Medical Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Mohammed Alhajji
- Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Temple University College of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Paul D'Avanzo
- Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Temple University College of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Zoe Landau
- Cancer Prevention and Control, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Sarah Bauerle Bass
- Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Temple University College of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Werts SJ, Lavelle SA, Crane TE, Thomson CA. Recruitment and Retention Strategies Used in Dietary Randomized Controlled Interventions with Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:4366. [PMID: 37686640 PMCID: PMC10486591 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15174366] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2023] [Revised: 08/28/2023] [Accepted: 08/30/2023] [Indexed: 09/10/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The purpose of this review was to systematically evaluate the quality of reporting of recruitment and retention methods in diet-related intervention trials among cancer survivors. METHODS A systematic search of five databases in Spring 2023 identified dietary intervention randomized controlled trials with a minimum of 50 cancer survivors, an intervention of at least eight weeks, and at least six months of study duration. Outcomes investigated include methodologic description and reporting of recruitment and retention rates. RESULTS Seventeen trials met inclusion criteria. Recruitment methods included cancer registry and clinician referral, hospital records, flyers, and media campaigns, and were reported in 88.2% of studies. Eleven of 17 studies (64.7%) met a priori recruitment goals. Eleven studies identified an a priori retention goal and seven met the goal. Retention goals were met more often for studies of less than one year (71.4%) versus greater than one year (50%), and for studies with remote or hybrid delivery (66.7%) versus only in-person delivery (50%). CONCLUSIONS Recruitment goals and methods are frequently reported; reporting of retention methods and goals is limited. Efforts are needed to improve reporting of retention methods and rates to inform best practices and enhance the rigor of future dietary intervention trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samantha J. Werts
- Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85724, USA;
- University of Arizona Cancer Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85724, USA
| | - Sarah A. Lavelle
- College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA;
| | - Tracy E. Crane
- Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33136, USA;
- Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33136, USA
| | - Cynthia A. Thomson
- Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85724, USA;
- University of Arizona Cancer Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85724, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Farris P, Crist R, Miller S, Shannon J. Rural research capacity: a co-created model for research success. Health Res Policy Syst 2023; 21:76. [PMID: 37488533 PMCID: PMC10364434 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-023-01030-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2022] [Accepted: 07/06/2023] [Indexed: 07/26/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The United States' National Institutes of Health (NIH) have long challenged academia to improve clinical trial enrollment, especially in underrepresented populations; inclusive of geography, age, disability status, racial and ethnic minorities. It has been shown that rural and urban residents enrolled in clinical trials have similar outcomes, yet, rural healthcare systems struggle to provide opportunities to rural residents to participate in clinical trials when infrastructure is limited or unsupportive of research programs and/or research staffing levels are insufficient. To fully address the barriers to clinical trial access in rural areas, it is not adequate to simply open more trials. Community receptivity of research as well as organizational and community capacity must be considered. This project was determined by the Oregon Health and Science University's Institutional Review Board to be generalizable research across the chosen counties and was approved to operate under a waiver of written consent. Participants received a cash incentive in appreciation for their time and verbally agreed to participate after reviewing a project information sheet. METHODS The research team co-created a community-responsive approach to the receipt, review, and acceptance of clinical trials in a rural community setting. An adapted 5 step Implementation Mapping approach was used to develop a systematic strategy intended to increase the success, and therefore, the number of clinical trials offered in a rural community. RESULTS The research team and participating rural community members pilot-tested the implementation of a co-designed research review strategy, inclusive of a Regional Cultural Landscape and three co-created project submission and feasibility review forms, with a cancer early detection clinical trial. The proposed clinical trial required engagement from primary care and oncology. Utilizing the research review strategy demonstrated strong researcher-community stakeholder communication and negotiation, which resulted in early identification and resolution of potential barriers, hiring a local clinical research coordinator, and timely trial opening. CONCLUSION To the knowledge of the research team, the work described is the first to use a community-engaged approach for creating a clinical trial implementation strategy directly supportive of rural-sitting community stakeholders in receiving, reviewing, and approving cancer-related clinical trials in their community. Participating community members and leaders had the chance to negotiate research protocol changes or considerations directly with researchers interested in conducting a cancer clinical trial in their rural setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paige Farris
- Community Outreach and Engagement Program, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, 97239, United States of America
| | - Rachel Crist
- Community Outreach and Engagement Program, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, 97239, United States of America
| | - Sylvia Miller
- Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, 97239, United States of America
| | - Jackilen Shannon
- Division of Oncologic Sciences, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd., Portland, OR, 97239, United States of America.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Oldfield LE, Jones V, Gill B, Kodous N, Fazelzad R, Rodin D, Sandhu H, Umakanthan B, Papadakos J, Giuliani ME. Synthesis of Existent Oncology Curricula for Primary Care Providers: A Scoping Review With a Global Equity Lens. JCO Glob Oncol 2023; 9:e2200298. [PMID: 37141562 DOI: 10.1200/go.22.00298] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/06/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Global increases in cancer, coupled with a shortage of cancer specialists, has led to an increasing role for primary care providers (PCP) in cancer care. This review aimed to examine all extant cancer curricula for PCPs and to analyze the motivations for curriculum development. METHODS A comprehensive literature search was conducted from inception to October 13, 2021, with no language restrictions. The initial search yielded 11,162 articles and 10,902 articles underwent title and abstract review. After full-text review, 139 articles were included. Numeric and thematic analyses were conducted and education programs were evaluated using Bloom's taxonomy. RESULTS Most curricula were developed in high-income countries (HICs), with 58% in the United States. Cancer-specific curricula focused on HIC priority cancers, such as skin/melanoma, and did not represent the global cancer burden. Most (80%) curricula were developed for staff physicians and 73% focused on cancer screening. More than half (57%) of programs were delivered in person, with a shift toward online delivery over time. Less than half (46%) of programs were codeveloped with PCPs and 34% did not involve PCPs in the program design and development. Curricula were primarily developed to improve cancer knowledge, and 72 studies assessed multiple outcome measures. No studies included the top two levels of Bloom's taxonomy of learning (evaluating; creating). CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this is the first review to assess the current state of cancer curricula for PCPs with a global focus. This review shows that extant curricula are primarily developed in HICs, do not represent the global cancer burden, and focus on cancer screening. This review lays a foundation to advance the cocreation of curricula that are aligned to the global cancer burden.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Vivien Jones
- Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Bhajan Gill
- Cancer Education, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Nardeen Kodous
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Rouhi Fazelzad
- Library and Information Services, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Danielle Rodin
- Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Ben Umakanthan
- Cancer Education, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Janet Papadakos
- Cancer Education, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
- The Institute for Education Research, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Meredith Elana Giuliani
- Cancer Education, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Effects of self-stereotype on older adults' self-integrity through the intervening effects of sense of coherence and empathy. AGEING & SOCIETY 2022. [DOI: 10.1017/s0144686x22001003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Self-integrity plays a vital role in the psychological wellbeing of older adults. The present study investigated whether or not the confrontation with negative, self-stereotyped information leads to a deterioration of older adults' self-integrity. Additionally, the current study attempted to examine the mediating effects of sense of coherence and empathy on the relationship between self-stereotype and self-integrity. A total of 825 Chinese older adults aged 55 or above from Xi'an and Beijing were recruited as research participants. A self-stereotype scale, sense of coherence scale, interpersonal reactivity index and self-integrity scale were used. Results showed that self-stereotypes are negatively associated with sense of coherence, empathy and self-integrity. Furthermore, sense of coherence and empathy are positively associated with self-integrity and played important roles in mediating the relationship between self-stereotype and self-integrity. Findings of this study can contribute to an improved understanding of the mechanism of associations between self-stereotype and self-integrity in older adults. Lastly, results obtained can provide guidance for effectively improving older adults' self-integrity to limit the negative effects of self-stereotypes.
Collapse
|
6
|
Yadav S, Todd A, Patel K, Tabriz AA, Nguyen O, Turner K, Hong YR. Public knowledge and information sources for clinical trials among adults in the USA: evidence from a Health Information National Trends Survey in 2020. Clin Med (Lond) 2022; 22:416-422. [PMID: 38589062 PMCID: PMC9595001 DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.2022-0107] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lack of clinical trial awareness has been identified as a barrier to clinical trial recruitment. Identifying factors associated with clinical trial knowledge could inform ongoing efforts to improve diversity in clinical trials. METHODS Using data from the Health Information National Trends Survey, 2020, we examined the knowledge of clinical trials, associated characteristics, sources of clinical trial information and motives to participate in clinical trials among the general population in the USA. RESULTS Of 3,772 US adults, 41.3% reported not knowing about clinical trials. Prevalence of having no knowledge of clinical trials was higher among Hispanic adults (51.8%) and non-Hispanic Black adults (41.8%) compared with non-Hispanic White adults (37.4%; p=0.013). Other significant predictors of knowledge about clinical trials included higher education, online health information-seeking behaviour and patient portal access. Most respondents (73.2%) reported that healthcare providers were the most trusted source of information. Helping other people (71.6%) was the primary motivation for clinical trial participation, followed by financial compensation (12.5%) and receiving better treatment (5.1%). CONCLUSION There is a gap in knowledge about clinical trials among the US population. Development of multimodal approaches, including online and offline information broadcasting, is needed to improve knowledge and clinical trial recruitment in diverse populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sandhya Yadav
- University of Florida College of Public Health and Health Professions, Gainesville, USA
| | - Alissa Todd
- University of Florida College of Public Health and Health Professions, Gainesville, USA
| | | | - Amir A Tabriz
- Moffitt Cancer Center Tampa, USA and University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, USA
| | | | - Kea Turner
- Moffitt Cancer Center Tampa, USA and University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, USA
| | - Young-Rock Hong
- University of Florida College of Public Health and Health Professions, Gainesville, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Julian McFarlane S, Occa A, Peng W, Awonuga O, Morgan SE. Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) to Enhance Participation of Racial/Ethnic Minorities in Clinical Trials: A 10-Year Systematic Review. HEALTH COMMUNICATION 2022; 37:1075-1092. [PMID: 34420460 DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2021.1943978] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 20.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
There has not been a significant improvement in the rate of clinical trial accrual in more than 20 years. Worse, the challenge of inadequate representation among racial and ethnic minorities also persists, deepening disparities in health. Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) is a participatory communication method that centers on effective dialogue between researchers and community stakeholders with the goal of creating an equitable partnership for health and social change. The objective of the current study was to provide an update since a systematic review in 2012, on the current status of the empirical research, with a particular focus on the elements of CBPR methods used to improve the rate of accrual of members of racial and ethnic minority communities for clinical trials. Our systematic review found a large increase in the number of CBPR related studies and studies related to racial and ethnic representation in research. More than 85% of studies employing CBPR methods saw statistically positive outcomes. Specifically, the elements of CBPR that are associated with these positive outcomes include community partner participation in (1) a study advisory committee, (2) data collection, (3) the development of interventions, and (4) participant recruitment. However, the results of our study indicate that researchers need to be more transparent about the extent of community participation as well as more thoroughly and accurately describe the nature of the partnership with members of minority communities in order to build upon the scientific literature on community-engaged methods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Aurora Occa
- Department of Communication, University of Kentucky
| | - Wei Peng
- Murrow College of Communication, Washington State University
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Merz EL, Riley NE, Malcarne VL, Sadler GR. Clinical trials-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors among Black and Latina women: A randomized controlled trial of the Women United: Clinical Trials and the Fight Against Breast Cancer Program. JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANCER EDUCATION 2022; 37:874-881. [PMID: 35386039 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-022-02162-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/29/2022] [Indexed: 05/11/2023]
Abstract
Black and Latino adult cancer patients are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials, which limits generalizability of findings and amplifies disparities in healthcare access and outcomes. Community-level education programs designed to address barriers to participation could improve representation in cancer clinical trials. Through a community-campus partner framework, this study evaluated the Women United: Clinical Trials and the Fight Against Breast Cancer Program in Spanish and English. Participants were 422 women (141 Black, 140 Latina Spanish preference, 141 Latina English preference) who were randomized to view either the intervention (n = 215) or a control (n = 207) program. Assessments of clinical trials knowledge and barriers to clinical trials participation were taken before and after viewing. Results suggested that clinical trials knowledge increased and perceived barriers to participation decreased for those who viewed the educational program. More specifically, those in the intervention condition perceived fewer barriers related to personal benefits, mistrust, and familiarity of clinical trials. As expected, there were no differences in perceived barriers related to community support for either condition. Participants in both conditions were equally likely to join a subsequent study or a clinical trials community ambassador program. There were no differences in any of the outcomes across ethnicity or language, suggesting the program works equivalently across groups. This program is easy to administer and can be recommended for use among Black and Latina women to address factors related to clinical trials participation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erin L Merz
- Department of Psychology, California State University, Dominguez Hills, 1000 E. Victoria Street, Carson, CA, 90747, USA.
| | | | - Vanessa L Malcarne
- SDSU/UC San Diego Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology, San Diego, USA
- San Diego State University, San Diego, USA
- UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, USA
| | - Georgia Robins Sadler
- SDSU/UC San Diego Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology, San Diego, USA
- UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
McCann SE, Rodriguez EM, Erwin D, Yao S, Tritchler D, Hullar MAJ, O'Connor T, Lampe JW. Recruitment and Retention of Healthy, Postmenopausal Women of African and European Ancestry: Results from a Dietary Intervention with Repeated Biospecimen Collections. Curr Dev Nutr 2022; 6:nzac012. [PMID: 35261959 PMCID: PMC8894291 DOI: 10.1093/cdn/nzac012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2021] [Revised: 01/13/2022] [Accepted: 01/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Recruitment of minority participants to clinical trials, especially studies without therapeutic intent, has been historically challenging. This study describes barriers to and successes of recruitment and retention strategies to dietary studies. A flaxseed study was conducted in healthy, postmenopausal women of African ancestry (AA) and European ancestry (EA) to assess associations between gut microbial community composition and host metabolism (NCT01698294). To ensure equitable participation by AA and EA women, multiple forms of recruitment were utilized, including advertisements, posters, e-mail, word of mouth, and community outreach. Successful recruitment and retention of AA women to the intervention depended upon the specific methods used. AA women compared with EA women were more likely to respond to direct recruitment and community-based methods, rather than general advertisements. However, once women expressed interest, similar rates of consent were observed for AA and EA women (AA and EA: 51.6% vs. 55.7%, respectively; P > 0.05), supporting the willingness of minority populations to participate in clinical research. Retention, however, was lower among AA compared with EA women (AA and EA: 57.6% vs. 80.9%, respectively; P < 0.01), which may be related to multiple factors, including health reasons, intolerance to flaxseed, noncompliance with study requirements, time constraints, and nonspecified personal reasons. This study confirms the utility of direct community-based strategies for recruitment of diverse populations into nontherapeutic dietary intervention studies. The methods used successfully identified eligible women who expressed willingness to consent to the trial and were able to achieve >70% of recruitment goals for AA women. Future efforts are warranted to improve retention to complex studies. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01698294.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susan E McCann
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Elisa M Rodriguez
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Deborah Erwin
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Song Yao
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - David Tritchler
- Department of Biostatistics, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Meredith A J Hullar
- Cancer Prevention Program, Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Tracey O'Connor
- Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Johanna W Lampe
- Cancer Prevention Program, Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Hasson Charles RM, Sosa E, Patel M, Erhunmwunsee L. Health Disparities in Recruitment and Enrollment in Research. Thorac Surg Clin 2022; 32:75-82. [PMID: 34801198 PMCID: PMC8611804 DOI: 10.1016/j.thorsurg.2021.09.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
Despite advances in thoracic oncology research, the benefits of new discoveries are not universally experienced. A lack of representation of racial/ethnic minorities and individuals of low socioeconomic status in clinical trials and thoracic research contributes to persistent health care disparities. It is critical that improved racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity is achieved in our trials and research, if we are to attain generalizability of findings and reduction of health care disparities. Culturally tailored and community-based approaches can help improve recruitment and enrollment of marginalized groups in thoracic research, which is an essential step toward achieving health equity and advancing medical science.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rian M. Hasson Charles
- Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03756
| | - Ernesto Sosa
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1500 E Duarte Rd, Duarte CA 91010
| | - Meghna Patel
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1500 E Duarte Rd, Duarte CA 91010
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Bylund CL, Michaels M, Weiss ES, Patel S, D'Agostino TA, Binz-Scharf MC, McKee D. The Impact of an Online Training Program About Cancer Clinical Trials on Primary Care Physicians' Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs, and Behavior. JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANCER EDUCATION 2021; 36:1039-1044. [PMID: 32157570 PMCID: PMC7483356 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-020-01731-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
Abstract
Participation in cancer clinical trials (CCTs) is critical to improving cancer treatments and quality of care. However, rates of patient participation remain low. Research has shown that a trusted physician recommendation is an important influence on patients' decisions to enroll in a CCT. Improving primary care providers' (PCPs') knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about CCTs is a promising potential path for improving CCT participation. The aim of this pilot study was to test the effect of an online educational course for PCPs about clinical trials on primary care providers' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, and behavior. Forty-one PCPs in the New York City area participated in a 1-h online training session on cancer clinical trials. These PCPs had self-selected to complete the training in a previous survey. The objectives of the training module were to (1) educate the PCPs about clinical trials, with a focus on overcoming misconceptions; and (2) discuss roles of PCPs in partnering with oncologists to help patients gain access to clinical trials. The training module included didactics, audio excerpts, and case descriptions. Participants completed a pre-test immediately before taking the course, a post-test immediately after taking the course, and a 3-month post-course survey. All three assessments included a general T/F knowledge test, a 7-item attitude/belief scale, and a knowledge test focused specifically on local resources and access for clinical trials. Forty-one PCPs completed the module and the pre-post course surveys. Eighty percent (33/41) also completed the 3-month post-course survey. General knowledge and local knowledge increased significantly (p < .05) from pre- to post-course. At 3 months post-training, both general and local knowledge scores remained significantly increased from baseline. For those who completed the 3-month post-course survey, attitudes and beliefs increased significantly from pre- to post-course, but this change was not sustained at 3 months post-training. At 3 months post-training, 52% of the PCPs who had an interaction with a recently diagnosed cancer patient reported speaking with patients about CCTs as a result of the training. A brief online course showed significant and sustained improvement in PCPs' general and local knowledge about cancer clinical trials, which translated into self-reported behavior change. Future dissemination of the course and further research into its impact are important next steps.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carma L Bylund
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
- University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.
| | - Margo Michaels
- Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda, USA
- Health Access and Action Consulting Newton, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Elisa S Weiss
- Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, USA
- The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Rye Brook, NY, USA
| | - Shilpa Patel
- Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, USA
- The Center for Health Care Strategies, Hamilton, USA
| | - Thomas A D'Agostino
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
- Albany Stratton VA Medical Center, Albany, USA
| | | | - Diane McKee
- Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, USA
- Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Kusnoor SV, Villalta-Gil V, Michaels M, Joosten Y, Israel TL, Epelbaum MI, Lee P, Frakes ET, Cunningham-Erves J, Mayers SA, Stallings SC, Giuse NB, Harris PA, Wilkins CH. Design and implementation of a massive open online course on enhancing the recruitment of minorities in clinical trials - Faster Together. BMC Med Res Methodol 2021; 21:44. [PMID: 33673809 PMCID: PMC7936494 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-021-01240-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2020] [Accepted: 02/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Racial and ethnic minorities are often underrepresented in clinical trials, threatening the generalizability of trial results. Several factors may contribute to underrepresentation of minorities in clinical trials, including lack of training for researchers and staff on the importance of diversity in clinical trials and effective strategies for recruiting and retaining minority populations. Methods Applying community engaged research principles, we developed a massive open online course (MOOC) to help research team members develop knowledge and skills to enhance the recruitment of minorities in clinical trials. A transdisciplinary working group, consisting of clinical researchers, community engagement specialists, minority clinical trial recruitment and retention educators and specialists, and knowledge management information scientists, was formed to develop an evidence-based curriculum. Feedback from the Recruitment Innovation Center Community Advisory Board was incorporated to help finalize the curriculum. The course was implemented in Coursera, an online learning platform offering MOOCs. A bootstrap paired sample t-test was used to compare pre- and post-assessments of knowledge, attitudes, and intentions as it relates to minority recruitment. Results The final course, entitled Faster Together, was divided into eight 1-h modules. Each module included video presentations, reading assignments, and quizzes. After 10 months, 382 individuals enrolled in the course, 105 participants completed the pre-test, and 14 participants completed the post-test. Participants’ knowledge scores were higher with an increase in the mean number of correct answers from 15.4 (95% CI:12.1–18.7) on the pre-test to 18.7 (95% CI:17.42–20.2) on the post-test. All post-test respondents (n = 14) indicated that the course improved their professional knowledge, and 71.4% of respondents indicated that they were very likely to make changes to their recruitment practices. Conclusions Faster Together, a massive open online course, is an acceptable, accessible approach to educating research teams on minority recruitment in clinical trials. Preliminary evidence indicates the course increased knowledge on how to recruit minorities into clinical trials and could promote change in their recruitment practices. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01240-x.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sheila V Kusnoor
- Center for Knowledge Management, Strategy and Innovation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 3401 West End, Suite 304, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA.
| | - Victoria Villalta-Gil
- Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Margo Michaels
- Health Action and Access Consulting, Boston, MA, USA.,Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Yvonne Joosten
- Department of Medical Education and Administration, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA.,Vanderbilt Institute for Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Tiffany L Israel
- Vanderbilt Institute for Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Marcia I Epelbaum
- Center for Knowledge Management, Strategy and Innovation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 3401 West End, Suite 304, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA
| | - Patricia Lee
- Center for Knowledge Management, Strategy and Innovation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 3401 West End, Suite 304, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA
| | - Elizabeth T Frakes
- Center for Knowledge Management, Strategy and Innovation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 3401 West End, Suite 304, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA
| | | | - Stephanie A Mayers
- Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Sarah C Stallings
- Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Nunzia B Giuse
- Center for Knowledge Management, Strategy and Innovation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 3401 West End, Suite 304, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA.,Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Paul A Harris
- Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.,Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Consuelo H Wilkins
- Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.,Department of Internal Medicine, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, USA.,Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.,Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.,Vice President for the Office of Health Equity, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Williamson TJ, Ostroff JS, Martin CM, Banerjee SC, Bylund CL, Hamann HA, Shen MJ. Evaluating relationships between lung cancer stigma, anxiety, and depressive symptoms and the absence of empathic opportunities presented during routine clinical consultations. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING 2021; 104:322-328. [PMID: 32859447 PMCID: PMC7855769 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.08.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2020] [Revised: 06/26/2020] [Accepted: 08/03/2020] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Empathic communication in clinical consultations is mutually constructed, with patients first presenting empathic opportunities (statements communicating emotions, challenges, or progress) to which clinicians can respond. We hypothesized that lung cancer patients who did not present empathic opportunities during routine consultations would report higher stigma, anxiety, and depressive symptoms than patients who presented at least one. METHODS Audio-recorded consultations between lung cancer patients (N = 56) and clinicians were analyzed to identify empathic opportunities. Participants completed questionnaires measuring sociodemographic and psychosocial characteristics. RESULTS Twenty-one consultations (38 %) did not contain empathic opportunities. Unexpectedly, there was a significant interaction between presenting empathic opportunities and patients' race on disclosure-related stigma (i.e., discomfort discussing one's cancer; F = 4.49, p = .041) and anxiety (F = 8.03, p = .007). Among racial minority patients (self-identifying as Black/African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander, or other race), those who did not present empathic opportunities reported higher stigma than those who presented at least one (t=-5.47, p = .038), but this difference was not observed among white patients (t = 0.38, p = .789). Additional statistically significant findings emerged for anxiety. CONCLUSION Disclosure-related stigma and anxiety may explain why some patients present empathic opportunities whereas others do not. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Clinicians should intentionally elicit empathic opportunities and encourage open communication with patients (particularly from diverse racial backgrounds).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy J Williamson
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
| | - Jamie S Ostroff
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Chloé M Martin
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Smita C Banerjee
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Carma L Bylund
- College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Heidi A Hamann
- Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Unger JM, Hershman DL, Osarogiagbon RU, Gothwal A, Anand S, Dasari A, Overman M, Loree JM, Raghav K. Representativeness of Black Patients in Cancer Clinical Trials Sponsored by the National Cancer Institute Compared With Pharmaceutical Companies. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2020; 4:pkaa034. [PMID: 32704619 PMCID: PMC7368466 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkaa034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Many clinical trials supporting new drug applications underrepresent minority patients. Trials conducted by the National Cancer Institute’s National Clinical Trial’s Network (NCTN) have greater outreach to community sites, potentially allowing better representation. We compared the representation of Black patients in pharmaceutical company–sponsored cancer clinical trials with NCTN trials and with the US cancer population. Methods We established a large cohort of study publications representing the results of trials that supported new US Food and Drug Administration drug approvals from 2008 to 2018. NCTN trial data were from the SWOG Cancer Research Network. US cancer population rates were estimated using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results survey data. We compared the proportion of Black patients by enrollment year for each cancer type and overall. Tests of proportions were used. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results A total 358 trials (pharmaceutical company–sponsored trials, 85; SWOG trials, 273) comprised of 93 825 patients (pharmaceutical company–sponsored trials, 46 313; SWOG trials, 47 512) for 15 cancer types were analyzed. Overall, the proportion of Black patients was 2.9% for pharmaceutical company–sponsored trials, 9.0% for SWOG trials, and 12.1% for the US cancer population (P < .001 for each pairwise comparison). These findings were generally consistent across individual cancer types. Conclusions The poor representation of Black patients in pharmaceutical company–sponsored trials supporting new drug applications could result in the use of new drugs with little data about efficacy or side effects in this key population. Moreover, because pharmaceutical company–sponsored trials test the newest available therapies, limited access to these trials represents a disparity in access to potential breakthrough therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph M Unger
- SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | | | | | - Seerat Anand
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Arvind Dasari
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Michael Overman
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Kanwal Raghav
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Huang H, Fang Y, Fang H, Wu D, Bai Y, Wang S, Yu A, Wang H, Sun C, Fan Q, Yu Y, Yang C, Shi J, He R, Li N. [Awareness and Influencing Factors of Clinical Trial Among Cancer Patients in China]. ZHONGGUO FEI AI ZA ZHI = CHINESE JOURNAL OF LUNG CANCER 2020; 23:5-14. [PMID: 31948532 PMCID: PMC7007388 DOI: 10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2020.01.02] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
背景与目的 早期研究表明患者对临床试验的认知度是影响其参与度的重要因素。本文主要为掌握中国肿瘤患者临床试验的认知度情况并探索相关影响因素,比较参加过和未参加试验患者认知度差异。 方法 2018年6月-2019年4月,采用标准化问卷收集中国医学科学院肿瘤医院肿瘤患者(参加过vs未参加过试验)基本信息、对临床试验整体看法及其他认知相关的10个维度,计算认知度合计得分,重新分为“认知较高组”和“认知较低组”,采用二元Logistics进行认知度的单因素和多因素影响分析。 结果 共纳入617例肿瘤患者,38.6%患者参加过试验。338例(54.6%)对试验整体看法认知正确,但仍有44例(7.1%)患者认为“参与临床试验患者是科学研究的牺牲品”。除外试验补偿维度(51.5% vs 48.7%)和法律法规(52.3% vs 45.5%)维度,参加过试验患者在研究意义(86.2% vs 77.6%)、风险收益告知(91.2% vs 71.6%)、资料保密(73.2% vs 59.7%)、自愿参与(95.8% vs 76.3%)、随时退出(86.6% vs 68.2%)、费用影响(62.8% vs 39.2%)6个维度相比未参加过试验患者认知正确比例均有一定提高。多因素分析结果显示,参加过试验(OR=1.83, 95%CI: 1.11-3.00)、未婚/离异(OR=5.04, 95%CI: 1.73-14.66)、退休(OR=2.53, 95%CI: 1.16-5.50)患者认知度较高,对医务人员印象一般/差(OR=0.43, 95%CI: 0.26-0.72)者认知度较低。 结论 我国肿瘤患者对临床试验的认知度较为有限,包括参加过试验患者。促进医患和谐、开展临床试验知识普及对提高患者认知度十分有必要;同时,针对性地加强临床试验知情同意告知的充分性和有效性也是未来工作的重要方向。
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Huiyao Huang
- Department of Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Yuan Fang
- Department of Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Hong Fang
- Department of Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Dawei Wu
- Department of Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Ying Bai
- Department of Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Shuhang Wang
- Department of Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Anqi Yu
- Department of Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Hui Wang
- Department of Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Chao Sun
- Department of Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Qi Fan
- Department of Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Yue Yu
- Department of Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Cheng Yang
- Department of Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Jufang Shi
- Department of Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Ruixian He
- Department of Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Ning Li
- Department of Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Peng W, Occa A, McFarlane SJ, Morgan SE. A Content Analysis of the Discussions about Clinical Trials on A Cancer-dedicated Online Forum. JOURNAL OF HEALTH COMMUNICATION 2019; 24:912-922. [PMID: 31709917 DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2019.1688895] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
Enrollment rates of cancer clinical trials remain low, affecting the delivery of effective medical treatments. Recent research has documented common factors affecting trial participation, but to improve these efforts more studies are needed to further understand specific concerns and issues of potential participants in multiple contexts. Forums and other online peer-to-peer health communities are crucial to the coping and survivorship of cancer patients. Online health communities will offer valuable information to understand how patients discuss perceptions, motivations, and challenges associated with clinical trial participation, and to understand how patients provide support to each other. The present study conducted a content analysis of 270 posts shared by 154 unique users between August 2017 and January 2018 on a popular online breast cancer forum. The analysis identifies common characteristics of patient users, salient post themes, perceived barriers, emotions, and misconceptions regarding clinical trial participation. The study findings are generally consistent with previous studies but provide in-depth insights into online support between cancer patients about clinical trial participation. Implications for practice and future research are also discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wei Peng
- School of Communication, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA
| | - Aurora Occa
- Department of Communication, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA
| | | | - Susan E Morgan
- School of Communication, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Peng W, Morgan SE, Mao B, McFarlane SJ, Occa A, Grinfeder G, Byrne MM. Ready to Make A Decision: A Model of Informational Aids to Improve Informed Participation in Clinical Trial Research. JOURNAL OF HEALTH COMMUNICATION 2019; 24:865-877. [PMID: 31663824 PMCID: PMC9617566 DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2019.1680773] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/10/2023]
Abstract
Enrollment rates for cancer clinical trials remain low, affecting the generalizability of new treatments. Research shows that many patients face significant challenges in understanding basic clinical trial vocabulary and making informed decisions about participation. Informational aids (IA) are developed to address these challenges and support decision making of cancer clinical trial participation. The present study proposed and tested a structural path model to explain the efficacy of three (i.e., interactive, non-interactive, non-cancer control) IAs. The results revealed that clinical trial participation intention was associated with attitudes and social constructs (i.e., social norm, social sharing, and cues to action). Ease of use, rather than knowledge, was the primary communication feature of IA that influenced the outcome variables. The path relations linking messages features, mediators, and outcome variables were different across all three IAs. The results therefore provide theoretical and practical implications for the use and development of IAs to support clinical trial accrual.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wei Peng
- School of Communication, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida
| | - Susan E. Morgan
- School of Communication, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida
| | - Bingjing Mao
- School of Communication, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida
| | | | - Aurora Occa
- Department of Communication, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky
| | - Gilles Grinfeder
- School of Communication, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida
| | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Gerido LH, Tang X, Ernst B, Langford A, He Z. Patient Engagement in Medical Research Among Older Adults: Analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21:e15035. [PMID: 31663860 PMCID: PMC6914241 DOI: 10.2196/15035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2019] [Revised: 09/08/2019] [Accepted: 09/24/2019] [Indexed: 01/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Background By 2035, it is expected that older adults (aged 65 years and older) will outnumber children and will represent 78 million people in the US population. As the aging population continues to grow, it is critical to reduce disparities in their representation in medical research. Objective This study aimed to describe sociodemographic characteristics and health and information behaviors as factors that influence US adults’ interest in engaging in medical research, beyond participation as study subjects. Methods Nationally representative cross-sectional data from the 2014 Health Information National Trends Survey (N=3677) were analyzed. Descriptive statistics and weighted multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess predictors of one’s interest in patient engagement in medical research. The independent variables included age, general health, income, race and ethnicity, education level, insurance status, marital status, and health information behaviors. Results We examined the association between the independent variables and patient interest in engaging in medical research (PTEngage_Interested). Patient interest in engaging in medical research has a statistically significant association with age (adjusted P<.01). Younger adults (aged 18-34 years), lower middle-aged adults (aged 35-49 years), and higher middle-aged adults (aged 50-64 years) indicated interest at relatively the same frequency (29.08%, 29.56%, and 25.12%, respectively), but older adults (aged ≥65 years) expressed less interest (17.10%) than the other age groups. After the multivariate model was run, older adults (odds ratio 0.738, 95% CI 0.500-1.088) were found to be significantly less likely to be interested in engaging in medical research than adults aged 50 to 64 years. Regardless of age, the strongest correlation was found between interest in engaging in medical research and actively looking for health information (P<.001). Respondents who did not seek health information were significantly less likely than those who did seek health information to be interested in engaging in medical research. Conclusions Patients’ interest in engaging in medical research vary by age and information-seeking behaviors. As the aging population continues to grow, it is critical to reduce disparities in their representation in medical research. Interest in participatory research methods may reflect an opportunity for consumer health informatics technologies to improve the representation of older adults in future medical research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Xiang Tang
- Department of Statistics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States
| | - Brittany Ernst
- College of Human Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States
| | - Aisha Langford
- Department of Population Health, School of Medicine, New York University, New York, NY, United States
| | - Zhe He
- School of Information, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Huang B, De Vore D, Chirinos C, Wolf J, Low D, Willard-Grace R, Tsao S, Garvey C, Donesky D, Su G, Thom DH. Strategies for recruitment and retention of underrepresented populations with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for a clinical trial. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019; 19:39. [PMID: 30791871 PMCID: PMC6385381 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-019-0679-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2018] [Accepted: 02/14/2019] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recruitment and retention are two significant barriers in research, particularly for historically underrepresented groups, including racial and ethnic minorities, patients who are low-income, or people with substance use or mental health issues. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death and disproportionately affects many underrepresented groups. The lack of representation of these groups in research limits the generalizability and applicability of clinical research and results. In this paper we describe our experience and rates of recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups for the Aides in Respiration (AIR) COPD Health Coaching Study. METHODS A priori design strategies included minimizing exclusion criteria, including patients in the study process, establishing partnerships with the community clinics, and ensuring that the health coaching intervention was flexible enough to accommodate patient needs. RESULTS Challenges to recruitment included lack of spirometric data in patient records, space constraints at the clinic sites, barriers to patient access to clinic sites, lack of current patient contact information and poor patient health. Of 282 patients identified as eligible, 192 (68%) were enrolled in the study and 158 (82%) completed the study. Race, gender, educational attainment, severity of disease, health literacy, and clinic site were not associated with recruitment or retention. However, older patients were less likely to enroll in the study and patients who used home oxygen or had more than one hospitalization during the study period were less likely to complete the study. Three key strategies to maximize recruitment and retention were identified during the study: incorporating the patient perspective, partnering with the community clinics, and building patient rapport. CONCLUSIONS While the AIR study included design features to maximize the recruitment and retention of patients from underrepresented groups, additional challenges were encountered and responded to during the study. We also identified three key strategies recommended for future studies of COPD and similar conditions. Incorporating the approaches described into future studies may increase participation rates from underrepresented groups, providing results that can be more accurately applied to patients who carry a disparate burden of disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial was registered at ClinicalTrial.gov at identifier NCT02234284 on August 12, 2014. Descriptor number: 2.9 Racial, ethnic, or social disparities in lung disease and treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Beatrice Huang
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco, 995 Potrero Avenue, Building 80, Ward 83, San Francisco, CA 94110 USA
| | - Denise De Vore
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA USA
| | - Chris Chirinos
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA USA
| | - Jessica Wolf
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA USA
| | - Devon Low
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA USA
| | - Rachel Willard-Grace
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA USA
| | - Stephanie Tsao
- San Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco, CA USA
| | - Chris Garvey
- University of California San Francisco at Mount Zion Sleep Disorders Center, San Francisco, CA USA
| | - Doranne Donesky
- Department of Physiological Nursing, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA USA
| | - George Su
- Department of Medicine: Pulmonology, Critical Care, Allergy and Sleep Medicine Program, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA USA
| | - David H. Thom
- Department of Medicine, Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Staples JN, Lester J, Li A, Walsh C, Cass I, Karlan BY, Bresee C, Rimel BJ. Language as a barrier to cancer clinical trial accrual: assessing consenting team knowledge and practices for cancer clinical trial consent among low English fluency patients. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2018. [DOI: 10.1186/s41241-018-0065-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
|
21
|
Salamone JM, Lucas W, Brundage SB, Holloway JN, Stahl SM, Carbine NE, London M, Greenwood N, Goyes R, Chisholm DC, Price E, Carlin R, Winarsky S, Baker KB, Maues J, Shajahan-Haq AN. Promoting Scientist-Advocate Collaborations in Cancer Research: Why and How. Cancer Res 2018; 78:5723-5728. [PMID: 30120210 DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.can-18-1600] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/29/2018] [Revised: 07/20/2018] [Accepted: 08/03/2018] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Advocates bring unique and important viewpoints to the cancer research process, ensuring that scientific and medical advances are patient-centered and relevant. In this article, we discuss the benefits of engaging advocates in cancer research and underscore ways in which both the scientific and patient communities can facilitate this mutually beneficial collaboration. We discuss how to establish and nurture successful scientist-advocate relationships throughout the research process. We review opportunities that are available to advocates who want to obtain training in the evaluation of cancer research. We also suggest practical solutions that can strengthen communication between scientists and advocates, such as introducing scientist-advocate interactions at the trainee level. Finally, we highlight the essential role social media can play in disseminating patient-supported cancer research findings to the patient community and in raising awareness of the importance of promoting cancer research. Our perspective offers a model that Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates have found effective and which could be one option for those interested in developing productive, successful, and sustainable collaborations between advocates and scientists in cancer research. Cancer Res; 78(20); 5723-8. ©2018 AACR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeannine M Salamone
- Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, Department of Oncology, Breast Cancer Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C
| | - Wanda Lucas
- Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, Department of Oncology, Breast Cancer Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C
| | - Shelley B Brundage
- Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, Department of Oncology, Breast Cancer Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C
| | - Jamie N Holloway
- Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, Department of Oncology, Breast Cancer Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C
| | - Sherri M Stahl
- Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, Department of Oncology, Breast Cancer Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C
| | - Nora E Carbine
- Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, Department of Oncology, Breast Cancer Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C
| | - Margery London
- Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, Department of Oncology, Breast Cancer Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C
| | - Naomi Greenwood
- Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, Department of Oncology, Breast Cancer Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C
| | - Rosa Goyes
- Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, Department of Oncology, Breast Cancer Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C
| | - Deborah Charles Chisholm
- Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, Department of Oncology, Breast Cancer Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C
| | - Erin Price
- Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, Department of Oncology, Breast Cancer Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C
| | - Roberta Carlin
- Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, Department of Oncology, Breast Cancer Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C
| | - Susan Winarsky
- Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, Department of Oncology, Breast Cancer Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C
| | - Kirsten B Baker
- Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, Department of Oncology, Breast Cancer Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C
| | - Julia Maues
- Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, Department of Oncology, Breast Cancer Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C
| | - Ayesha N Shajahan-Haq
- Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, Department of Oncology, Breast Cancer Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C.
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
McNeill LH, Reitzel LR, Escoto KH, Roberson CL, Nguyen N, Vidrine JI, Strong LL, Wetter DW. Engaging Black Churches to Address Cancer Health Disparities: Project CHURCH. Front Public Health 2018; 6:191. [PMID: 30073158 PMCID: PMC6060541 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00191] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2018] [Accepted: 06/22/2018] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
African Americans in the United States suffer disproportionately from cancer, having the highest mortality rate of any racial/ethnic group across all cancers for the past several decades. In addition, significant disparities exist in several cancer risk behaviors, including obesity, intake of fruits and vegetables, leisure time physical activity and cancer screening. Addressing these disparities require successful development of relationships with minority communities to partner in the research process, in order to understand areas of critical need and develop interventions that are compatible with this community. In this manuscript we describe Project CHURCH (Creating a Higher Understanding of Cancer Research and Community Health), a collaborative partnership between The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Houston-area African American churches. Project CHURCH was developed to understand disparities in cancer prevention risk factors and engage African Americans as partners in the research process. Using community-based participatory research principles, we describe the development and infrastructure of the research partnership, as well as how the church community has been engaged in the development and implementation of a large African American cohort study (N = 2,338). Finally, the characteristics of the cohort are presented along with cohort success in addressing community need while having significant contribution to the scientific literature. Project CHURCH serves as a valuable resource for cancer prevention in the African American community.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lorna H McNeill
- Health Disparities Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Lorraine R Reitzel
- Psychological Health and Learning Sciences, University of Houston, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Kamisha H Escoto
- Health Disparities Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Crystal L Roberson
- Health Disparities Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Nga Nguyen
- Health Disparities Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Jennifer I Vidrine
- Family and Preventive Medicine, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma, OK, United States
| | - Larkin L Strong
- Health Disparities Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - David W Wetter
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Hannigan A. Public and patient involvement in quantitative health research: A statistical perspective. Health Expect 2018; 21:939-943. [PMID: 29920877 PMCID: PMC6250860 DOI: 10.1111/hex.12800] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/03/2018] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The majority of studies included in recent reviews of impact for public and patient involvement (PPI) in health research had a qualitative design. PPI in solely quantitative designs is underexplored, particularly its impact on statistical analysis. Statisticians in practice have a long history of working in both consultative (indirect) and collaborative (direct) roles in health research, yet their perspective on PPI in quantitative health research has never been explicitly examined. OBJECTIVE To explore the potential and challenges of PPI from a statistical perspective at distinct stages of quantitative research, that is sampling, measurement and statistical analysis, distinguishing between indirect and direct PPI. CONCLUSIONS Statistical analysis is underpinned by having a representative sample, and a collaborative or direct approach to PPI may help achieve that by supporting access to and increasing participation of under-represented groups in the population. Acknowledging and valuing the role of lay knowledge of the context in statistical analysis and in deciding what variables to measure may support collective learning and advance scientific understanding, as evidenced by the use of participatory modelling in other disciplines. A recurring issue for quantitative researchers, which reflects quantitative sampling methods, is the selection and required number of PPI contributors, and this requires further methodological development. Direct approaches to PPI in quantitative health research may potentially increase its impact, but the facilitation and partnership skills required may require further training for all stakeholders, including statisticians.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ailish Hannigan
- Public and Patient Involvement Research Unit, Graduate Entry Medical School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.,Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Wells JS, Pugh S, Boparai K, Rearden J, Yeager KA, Bruner DW. Cultural Competency Training to Increase Minority Enrollment into Radiation Therapy Clinical Trials-an NRG Oncology RTOG Study. JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANCER EDUCATION 2017; 32:721-727. [PMID: 27209044 PMCID: PMC5118189 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-016-1051-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/12/2023]
Abstract
Despite initiatives to increase the enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities into cancer clinical trials in the National Cancer Institute National Cancer Clinical Trials Network (NCCTN), participation by Latino and African American populations remain low. The primary aims of this pilot study are (1) to develop a Cultural Competency and Recruitment Training Program (CCRTP) for physician investigators and clinical research associates (CRAs), (2) to determine if the CCRTP increases cultural competency scores among physician investigators and CRAs, and (3) to determine the impact of the CCRTP on minority patient recruitment into NRG Oncology Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) clinical trials. Sixty-seven CRAs and physicians participated in an in-person or online 4-h CRRTP training. Five knowledge and attitude items showed significant improvements from pre- to post-training. A comparison between enrolling sites that did and did not participate in the CCRTP demonstrated a pre to 1-year post-incremental increase in minority accrual to clinical trials of 1.2 % among participating sites. While not statistically significant, this increase translated into an additional 300 minority patients accrued to NCCTN clinical trials in the year following the training from those sites who participated in the training.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica S Wells
- Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, 1520 Clifton Road, Room 230, Atlanta, GA, 30322-4201, USA.
| | - Stephanie Pugh
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | | | | | - Katherine A Yeager
- Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, 1520 Clifton Road, Room 230, Atlanta, GA, 30322-4201, USA
| | - Deborah W Bruner
- Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, 1520 Clifton Road, Room 230, Atlanta, GA, 30322-4201, USA
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Bylund CL, Weiss ES, Michaels M, Patel S, D'Agostino TA, Peterson EB, Binz-Scharf MC, Blakeney N, McKee MD. Primary care physicians' attitudes and beliefs about cancer clinical trials. Clin Trials 2017; 14:518-525. [PMID: 28693389 DOI: 10.1177/1740774517717722] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS Cancer clinical trials give patients access to state-of-the-art treatments and facilitate the translation of findings into mainstream clinical care. However, patients from racial and ethnic minority groups remain underrepresented in clinical trials. Primary care physicians are a trusted source of information for patients, yet their role in decision-making about cancer treatment and referrals to trial participation has received little attention. The aim of this study was to determine physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about cancer clinical trials, their experience with trials, and their interest in appropriate training about trials. METHODS A total of 613 physicians in the New York City area primarily serving patients from ethnic and racial minority groups were invited via email to participate in a 20-min online survey. Physicians were asked about their patient population, trial knowledge and attitudes, interest in training, and personal demographics. Using calculated scale variables, we used descriptive statistical analyses to better understand physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about trials. RESULTS A total of 127 physicians completed the survey. Overall, they had low knowledge about and little experience with trials. However, they generally had positive attitudes toward trials, with 41.4% indicating a strong interest in learning more about their role in trials, and 35.7% indicating that they might be interested. Results suggest that Black and Latino physicians and those with more positive attitudes and beliefs were more likely to be interested in future training opportunities. CONCLUSION Primary care physicians may be an important group to target in trying to improve cancer clinical trial participation among minority patients. Future work should explore methods of educational intervention for such interested providers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carma L Bylund
- 1 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.,2 Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Doha, Qatar.,3 Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
| | - Elisa S Weiss
- 4 The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Rye Brook, NY, USA
| | - Margo Michaels
- 5 Health Care Access and Action Consulting, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Shilpa Patel
- 6 Department of Population Health, NYU Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Emily B Peterson
- 7 Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
| | | | - Natasha Blakeney
- 9 Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - M Diane McKee
- 10 Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Geana M, Erba J, Krebill H, Doolittle G, Madhusudhana S, Qasem A, Malomo N, Sharp D. Searching for cures: Inner-city and rural patients' awareness and perceptions of cancer clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2017; 5:72-79. [PMID: 29740623 PMCID: PMC5936702 DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2016.12.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2016] [Revised: 11/22/2016] [Accepted: 12/12/2016] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Fewer than 5% of cancer patients participate in clinical trials, making it challenging to test new therapies or interventions for cancer. Even within that small number, patients living in inner-city and rural areas are underrepresented in clinical trials. This study explores cancer patients' awareness and perceptions of cancer clinical trials, as well as their perceptions of patient-provider interactions related to discussing cancer clinical trials in order to improve accrual in cancer clinical trials. Interviews with 66 former and current in inner-city and rural cancer patients revealed a lack of awareness and understanding about clinical trials, as well as misconceptions about what clinical trials entail. Findings also revealed that commercials and television shows play a prominent role in forming inner-city and rural patients' attitudes and/or misconceptions about clinical trials. However, rural patients were more likely to hold unfavorable views about clinical trials than inner-city patients. Patient-provider discussions emerged as being crucial for increasing awareness of clinical trials among patients and recruiting them to trials. Findings from this study will inform communication strategies to enhance recruitment to cancer clinical trials by increasing awareness and countering misconceptions about clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mugur Geana
- William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications, The University of Kansas, 1435 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045, USA
| | - Joseph Erba
- William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications, The University of Kansas, 1435 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045, USA
| | - Hope Krebill
- Midwest Cancer Alliance, 4350 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Fairway, KS 66205, USA
| | - Gary Doolittle
- School of Medicine, The University of Kansas Cancer Center, 3901 Rainbow Blvd., Kansas City, KS 66160, USA
| | - Sheshadri Madhusudhana
- Richard and Annette Bloch Cancer Center, Truman Medical Centers, 2301 Holmes., Kansas City, MO 64108, USA
| | - Abdulraheem Qasem
- Richard and Annette Bloch Cancer Center, Truman Medical Centers, 2301 Holmes., Kansas City, MO 64108, USA
| | - Nikki Malomo
- Richard and Annette Bloch Cancer Center, Truman Medical Centers, 2301 Holmes., Kansas City, MO 64108, USA
| | - Denise Sharp
- Richard and Annette Bloch Cancer Center, Truman Medical Centers, 2301 Holmes., Kansas City, MO 64108, USA
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Choi YJ, Beck SH, Kang WY, Yoo S, Kim SY, Lee JS, Burt T, Kim TW. Knowledge and Perception about Clinical Research Shapes Behavior: Face to Face Survey in Korean General Public. J Korean Med Sci 2016; 31:674-81. [PMID: 27134486 PMCID: PMC4835590 DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.5.674] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2015] [Accepted: 02/17/2016] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Considering general public as potential patients, identifying factors that hinder public participation poses great importance, especially in a research environment where demands for clinical trial participants outpace the supply. Hence, the aim of this study was to evaluate knowledge and perception about clinical research in general public. A total of 400 Seoul residents with no previous experience of clinical trial participation were selected, as representative of population in Seoul in terms of age and sex. To minimize selection bias, every fifth passer-by was invited to interview, and if in a cluster, person on the very right side was asked. To ensure the uniform use of survey, written instructions have been added to the questionnaire. Followed by pilot test in 40 subjects, the survey was administered face-to-face in December 2014. To investigate how perception shapes behavior, we compared perception scores in those who expressed willingness to participate and those who did not. Remarkably higher percentage of responders stated that they have heard of clinical research, and knew someone who participated (both, P < 0.001) compared to India. Yet, the percentage of responders expressed willingness to participate was 39.3%, a significantly lower rate than the result of the India (58.9% vs. 39.3%, P < 0.001). Treatment benefit was the single most influential reason for participation, followed by financial gain. Concern about safety was the main reason for refusal, succeeded by fear and lack of trust. Public awareness and educational programs addressing these negative perceptions and lack of knowledge will be effective in enhancing public engaged in clinical research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yun Jung Choi
- Asan Medical Center, Clinical Trial Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sung-Ho Beck
- Asan Medical Center, Clinical Trial Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Woon Yong Kang
- Asan Medical Center, Clinical Trial Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Soyoung Yoo
- Asan Medical Center, Human Research Protection Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seong-Yoon Kim
- Asan Medical Center, Human Research Protection Center, Seoul, Korea
- Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Ji Sung Lee
- Asan Medical Center, Clinical Research Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Tal Burt
- Duke Global Proof-of-Concept (POC) Research Network, Duke Clinical Research Unit (DCRU) & Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI), Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Tae Won Kim
- Asan Medical Center, Clinical Trial Center, Seoul, Korea
- Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Blakeney N, Michaels M, Green M, Richmond A, Long D, Robinson W, Corbie-Smith G. Collaborative development of clinical trials education programs for African-American community-based organizations. JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANCER EDUCATION 2015; 30:400-406. [PMID: 24906502 PMCID: PMC4446971 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-014-0673-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/28/2023]
Abstract
This paper describes the use of a unique "Learning and Feedbackˮ approach to customize cancer clinical trials education programs for Community Bridges, a peer training intervention designed for African-American communities in North Carolina. Generic community education modules were demonstrated with key community leaders who were designated as trainers. Quantitative and qualitative assessments were provided on understanding of content, comfort with material, and cultural relevance. The generic materials were adapted into three revised modules, all featuring key messages about cancer clinical trials, discussion regarding distrust of medical research, common misconceptions about trials, patient protections, and a call to action to prompt increased inquiry about locally available trials. The revised modules were then used as part of a train-the-trainer program with 12 African-American community leaders. ENACCT's use of the Learning and Feedback process is an innovative method for culturally adapting clinical trials education.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natasha Blakeney
- Training Manager, Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, 7625 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 300 Bethesda, MD 20814, Phone: (301) 893-7603 , Fax: (301) 893-7599,
| | - Margo Michaels
- Executive Director, Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda, MD
| | - Melissa Green
- Project Manager, Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Al Richmond
- North Carolina Institute of Minority Economic Development, Healthy Workplace Initiatives, Durham, NC
| | - Debra Long
- Executive Director, Crossworks, Inc., Rocky Mount, NC
| | | | - Giselle Corbie-Smith
- TraCS Community Engagement Core, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Green MA, Michaels M, Blakeney N, Odulana AA, Isler MR, Richmond A, Long DG, Robinson WS, Taylor YJ, Corbie-Smith G. Evaluating a community-partnered cancer clinical trials pilot intervention with African American communities. JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANCER EDUCATION 2015; 30:158-166. [PMID: 25564207 PMCID: PMC4399637 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-014-0764-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/31/2023]
Abstract
Cancer clinical trial (CCT) accrual and retention rates remain disproportionately low among African Americans. Awarenesss and access to trials are crucial facilitators of trial participation. Strategies developed within a community-based participatory framework (CBPR) are potential solutions to increase awareness and access to CCTs. In this study, we describe the pilot phase of three innovative community-centered modules to improve basic CCT knowledge, awareness of locations to access CCT information, and opportunities to participate in CCTs. Four community organizations completed Community Bridges to CCT training-of-the-trainer and recruited adult African American volunteers to participate in one of three CCT education modules: a workshop about CCTs, a role play describing one person's experience with CCTs, or a call and response session reviewing myths and facts about CCTs. Pre- and post-test surveys were collected and analyzed using McNemar agreement statistic to evaluate changes in knowledge and attitudes regarding trials. Trainers enrolled 125 participants in the call and response (n = 22), role play (n = 60), and workshop (n = 43) modules. Module participants were mostly African American, female, and with a mean age of 53 years. Comparison of pre- and post-test responses demonstrates favorable changes in awareness of CCTs and where to access CCTs across the sample. Analysis by module type indicates significant increases for participants in the call and response (p < 0.01) and role play modules (p < 0.001), but not the workshop module. Despite measures taken to increase the participation and retention rate of African Americans in clinical trials, little advancement has been made. Developing tailored community education modules on CCTs within the CBPR framework is a promising innovation to increase knowledge about CCTs and favorable attitudes about participation that are known precursors to trial enrollment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melissa A. Green
- NC TraCS Institute University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 140 North Medical Drive, CB#7064 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7064
| | - Margo Michaels
- Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials 7625 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 300 Bethesda, MD 20814 Phone: 301-537-5647 Fax: (301) 893-7599
| | - Natasha Blakeney
- Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials 7625 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 300 Bethesda, MD 20814 Phone: (301) 893-7603 Fax: (301) 893-7599
| | - Adebowale A. Odulana
- Department of Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina 135 Rutledge Avenue, MSC 561 Charleston, SC 29425 Phone: (843)876-8512
| | - Malika Roman Isler
- Department Social Medicine, School of Medicine Campus Box 7240, 342B MacNider Hall University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 27599 Phone: 919-843-4505 Fax: 919-966-7499
| | - Alan Richmond
- NC Community Health Leadership Roundtable PO Box 12124 Raleigh, NC 27605 919-880-9428
| | - Debra G. Long
- Crossworks, Inc. 1041 Noell Lane, Suite 101 Rocky Mount, NC 27804 Phone: 252-446-6964
| | - William S. Robinson
- Black Men's Health Initiative 822 St. Paul Road Camden, SC 29020 Phone: 803-432-0260
| | - Yhenneko J. Taylor
- Carolinas HealthCare System 720 E. Morehead St., Suite 202 Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: 704-355-6562 Fax: 704-355-1383
| | - Giselle Corbie-Smith
- Department Social Medicine, School of Medicine TraCS Community Engagement Core Campus Box 7240, 342B MacNider Hall University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 27599 Phone: 919-843-6877 Fax: 919-966-7499
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Michaels M, D'Agostino TA, Blakeney N, Weiss ES, Binz-Scharf MC, Golant M, Bylund CL. Impact of primary care provider knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about cancer clinical trials: implications for referral, education and advocacy. JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANCER EDUCATION 2015; 30:152-7. [PMID: 24805229 PMCID: PMC5417332 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-014-0662-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/21/2023]
Abstract
Primary Care Providers (PCPs) can be instrumental in helping to prepare patients for referral to cancer treatment. It has been suggested that PCPs can have an important impact on priming patients about the possibility of receiving care within a cancer treatment clinical trial (CCT). However, little is understood about how to effectively engage primary care providers in educating patients about trials. Data were collected as part of two qualitative research projects about primary care providers' role in referral to treatment and to CCTs. Participants were 27 PCPs who agreed to take part in qualitative face-to-face or telephone interviews and serve predominantly underserved, minority populations. Interviews identified a number of factors influencing referral to oncologists, including patients' insurance coverage, location and proximity to treatment facilities, and the strength of ongoing relationships with and/or previous experience with a specialist. PCPs overwhelmingly expressed disinterest in discussing any treatment options, including CCTs. Misconceptions about quality of care received through trials were also common, presenting a deterrent to discussion. PCPs need targeted, evidence-based educational interventions to appropriately address their concerns about cancer clinical trials, enhance provider communication skills, and alter patient referral behavior. Steps must also be taken to strengthen communication between oncologists and referring PCPs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Margo Michaels
- Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, 7625 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 300, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA,
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
Michaels M, Blakeney N, Langford AT, Ford ME. Five principles for effective cancer clinical trial education within the community setting. JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANCER EDUCATION 2015; 30:197-203. [PMID: 25005705 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-014-0699-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/03/2023]
Abstract
Participation in cancer clinical trials (CCTs) is a key measure for delivery of quality cancer care. Yet, adult cancer patient participation in CCTs remains at about 3%, and participation rates are even lower among ethnic and racial minorities and the medically underserved. Social justice demands better representation of all populations in CCTs to ensure equal access to clinical trials and to ensure greater generalizability of trial results. Using a conceptual framework, this paper outlines a set of guiding principles deemed essential for effective and ethical implementation of community-based education in CCTs. Also described are examples of interventions related to this framework that have been used to overcome key barriers to trial enrollment among underserved populations. Application of the key principles, combined with ongoing engagement of cancer care institutions, suggests promise in enhancing trial participation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Margo Michaels
- Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, 7625 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 300, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA,
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
32
|
Leiter A, Diefenbach MA, Doucette J, Oh WK, Galsky MD. Clinical trial awareness: Changes over time and sociodemographic disparities. Clin Trials 2015; 12:215-23. [PMID: 25673636 DOI: 10.1177/1740774515571917] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND OR AIMS Lack of clinical trial awareness is a known obstacle to clinical trial enrollment. We sought to define the prevalence of clinical trial awareness in the US population, determine characteristics associated with increased trial awareness, and explore potential disparities in trial awareness. METHODS We utilized data from the Health Information National Trends Survey from 2008 and 2012. Logistic regression was utilized to assess predictors of clinical trial awareness, particularly sociodemographic variables and information-seeking preferences. Trial awareness and information-seeking preferences were compared in patient subgroups and between the two time periods. RESULTS Clinical trial awareness increased from 68% to 74% between 2008 and 2012. In the 2012 dataset, higher education level (odds ratio: 3.52, 95% confidence interval: 2.16-5.74), higher yearly income category (odds ratio: 1.84, 95% confidence interval: 1.17-2.89), and Internet use (odds ratio: 2.13, 95% confidence interval: 1.52-3.00) were significantly associated with clinical trial awareness. Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio: 0.41, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-0.68) was significantly associated with decreased awareness. Clinical trial awareness increased in African-American/Blacks (Δ10.6%) and Hispanics (Δ10.7%) between 2008 and 2012, as did Internet use in both subgroups (Δ14.2%, Δ18.1%, respectively). CONCLUSION Overall clinical trial awareness has increased between 2008 and 2012, although a large subset of the population still lacks general awareness of clinical trials. Racial and ethnic disparities in trial awareness exist, although disparities may be decreasing among the Black population. These findings may help target educational efforts and inform approaches to increasing trial awareness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda Leiter
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - Michael A Diefenbach
- Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - John Doucette
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - William K Oh
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - Matthew D Galsky
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Burt T, Sharma P, Dhillon S, Manchanda M, Mittal S, Trehan N. Clinical Research Environment in India: Challenges and Proposed Solutions. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL RESEARCH & BIOETHICS 2014; 5:1-8. [PMID: 25590017 PMCID: PMC4290669 DOI: 10.4172/2155-9627.1000201] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
India has compelling need and keen aspirations for indigenous clinical research. Notwithstanding this need and previously reported growth the expected expansion of Indian clinical research has not materialized. We reviewed the scientific literature, lay press reports, and ClinicalTrials.gov data for information and commentary on projections, progress, and impediments associated with clinical trials in India. We also propose targeted solutions to identified challenges. The Indian clinical trial sector grew by (+) 20.3% CAGR (compound annual growth rate) between 2005 and 2010 and contracted by (-) 14.6% CAGR between 2010 and 2013. Phase-1 trials grew by (+) 43.5% CAGR from 2005-2013, phase-2 trials grew by (+) 19.8% CAGR from 2005-2009 and contracted by (-) 12.6% CAGR from 2009-2013, and phase-3 trials grew by (+) 13.0% CAGR from 2005-2010 and contracted by (-) 28.8% CAGR from 2010-2013. This was associated with a slowing of the regulatory approval process, increased media coverage and activist engagement, and accelerated development of regulatory guidelines and recuperative initiatives. We propose the following as potential targets for restorative interventions: Regulatory overhaul (leadership and enforcement of regulations, resolution of ambiguity in regulations, staffing, training, guidelines, and ethical principles [e.g., compensation]).Education and training of research professionals, clinicians, and regulators.Public awareness and empowerment. After a peak in 2009-2010, the clinical research sector in India appears to be experiencing a contraction. There are indications of challenges in regulatory enforcement of guidelines; training of clinical research professionals; and awareness, participation, partnership, and the general image amongst the non-professional media and public. Preventative and corrective principles and interventions are outlined with the goal of realizing the clinical research potential in India.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tal Burt
- Duke Clinical Research Unit and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
34
|
Heller C, Balls-Berry JE, Nery JD, Erwin PJ, Littleton D, Kim M, Kuo WP. Strategies addressing barriers to clinical trial enrollment of underrepresented populations: a systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials 2014; 39:169-82. [PMID: 25131812 DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2014.08.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 189] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2014] [Revised: 08/01/2014] [Accepted: 08/02/2014] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trials remains a reality while they have disproportionately higher rates of health disparities. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to identify successful community-engaged interventions that included health care providers as a key strategy in addressing barriers to clinical trial enrollment of underrepresented patients. DESIGN A systematic review of the literature on interventions addressing enrollment barriers to clinical trials for racial and ethnic minorities was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, EBSCO Megafile, and EBSCO CINAHL. The systematic review identified 360 studies, and 20 were selected using the inclusion criteria. An iterative process extracted information from the eligible studies. RESULTS The 20 selected studies were analyzed and then grouped by first author, nature of the clinical research initiative, priority populations, key strategies, and study outcomes. Nine of the studies addressed cancer clinical trials and 11 related to chronic medical conditions, including diabetes, hypertension management, and chronic kidney disease. The key strategies employed were categorized according to their presumed impact on barriers incurred at distinct steps in study recruitment: clinical trial awareness, opportunity to participate, and acceptance of enrollment. The strategies were further categorized by whether they would address barriers associated with minority perceptions of the research process and barriers related to how studies were designed and implemented. CONCLUSION Multiple and flexible strategies targeting providers and participants at provider sites and within communities might be needed to enroll underrepresented populations into clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caren Heller
- Weill Cornell Medical College, Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Ethics, United States
| | - Joyce E Balls-Berry
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Health Sciences Research, Division of Epidemiology, United States; Mayo Clinic, Center for Clinical and Translational Science Office for Community Engagement in Research, United States.
| | - Jill Dumbauld Nery
- University of California San Diego, Clinical and Translational Research Institute, United States
| | | | | | - Mimi Kim
- NC TraCS Institute, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States; Center for Biobehavioral Health Disparities, United States
| | - Winston P Kuo
- Interferon Expression Signature Diagnostics, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States; Harvard Catalyst, Laboratory for Innovative Translational Technologies, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Sharrocks K, Spicer J, Camidge DR, Papa S. The impact of socioeconomic status on access to cancer clinical trials. Br J Cancer 2014; 111:1684-7. [PMID: 25093493 PMCID: PMC4453719 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2014.108] [Citation(s) in RCA: 77] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2013] [Revised: 01/02/2014] [Accepted: 02/03/2014] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Cancer clinical trials enable the development of novel agents for the potential benefit of cancer patients. Enrolment in a trial offers patients the chance of superior efficacy coupled to the risk of unanticipated toxicity. For trial results to be generalisable, the data need to be collected in patients' representative of the general cancer population. Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with poor cancer outcomes. In the developed world, the gap between the most and least deprived is widening. This mini-review explores the evidence regarding socioeconomics and access to cancer trials, highlighting the underrepresentation of deprived patients, and exploring reasons for this disparity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K Sharrocks
- Department of Medical Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Great Maze Pond, London SE1 9RT, UK
| | - J Spicer
- Department of Medicine, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, 3rd Floor Bermondsey Wing, Great Maze Pond, London SE1 9RT, UK
| | - D R Camidge
- Developmental Therapeutics Program, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO 80045, USA
| | - S Papa
- Department of Medicine, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, 3rd Floor Bermondsey Wing, Great Maze Pond, London SE1 9RT, UK
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Guidry JA, Lubetkin E, Corner G, Lord-Bessen J, Kornegay M, Burkhalter JE. Promoting cancer prevention and control in community-based HIV/AIDS service organizations: are they ready? AIDS EDUCATION AND PREVENTION : OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR AIDS EDUCATION 2014; 26:43-55. [PMID: 24450277 PMCID: PMC4617750 DOI: 10.1521/aeap.2014.26.1.43] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/03/2023]
Abstract
Community-based organizations (CBOs) serving persons living with HIV or AIDS face the challenge of an aging population with more chronic diseases. This study assessed cancer programming needs of AIDS service organizations (ASOs) in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut by conducting a community needs assessment. Sixty (58%) of 103 organizations completed the survey. ASOs conduct activities most related to early steps along the cancer care continuum, but they also express great interest in expanding cancer-focused programming into new areas. ASOs have resources or capacities in assisting HIV+ clients with mental health or substance abuse problems, but there exists a need for funding in undertaking or expanding cancer-focused programs. ASOs are receptive to collaborating with researchers on disseminating cancer prevention and control knowledge in their settings. Community-academic research partnerships enable resonant training and technical assistance methods to be explored that will enhance the abilities of ASOs to bring cancer-related programming to their clients.
Collapse
|
37
|
Denicoff AM, McCaskill-Stevens W, Grubbs SS, Bruinooge SS, Comis RL, Devine P, Dilts DM, Duff ME, Ford JG, Joffe S, Schapira L, Weinfurt KP, Michaels M, Raghavan D, Richmond ES, Zon R, Albrecht TL, Bookman MA, Dowlati A, Enos RA, Fouad MN, Good M, Hicks WJ, Loehrer PJ, Lyss AP, Wolff SN, Wujcik DM, Meropol NJ. The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations. J Oncol Pract 2013; 9:267-76. [PMID: 24130252 PMCID: PMC3825288 DOI: 10.1200/jop.2013.001119] [Citation(s) in RCA: 119] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Many challenges to clinical trial accrual exist, resulting in studies with inadequate enrollment and potentially delaying answers to important scientific and clinical questions. METHODS The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) cosponsored the Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Science and Solutions on April 29-30, 2010 to examine the state of accrual science related to patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational influences, and identify new interventions to facilitate clinical trial enrollment. The symposium featured breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and a poster session including 100 abstracts. Among the 358 attendees were clinical investigators, researchers of accrual strategies, research administrators, nurses, research coordinators, patient advocates, and educators. A bibliography of the accrual literature in these three major areas was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. After the symposium, the literature in these areas was revisited to determine if the symposium recommendations remained relevant within the context of the current literature. RESULTS Few rigorously conducted studies have tested interventions to address challenges to clinical trials accrual. Attendees developed recommendations for improving accrual and identified priority areas for future accrual research at the patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational levels. Current literature continues to support the symposium recommendations. CONCLUSIONS A combination of approaches addressing both the multifactorial nature of accrual challenges and the characteristics of the target population may be needed to improve accrual to cancer clinical trials. Recommendations for best practices and for future research developed from the symposium are provided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea M. Denicoff
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Worta McCaskill-Stevens
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Stephen S. Grubbs
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Suanna S. Bruinooge
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Robert L. Comis
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Peggy Devine
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - David M. Dilts
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Michelle E. Duff
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Jean G. Ford
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Steven Joffe
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Lidia Schapira
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Kevin P. Weinfurt
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Margo Michaels
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Derek Raghavan
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Ellen S. Richmond
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Robin Zon
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Terrance L. Albrecht
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Michael A. Bookman
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Afshin Dowlati
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Rebecca A. Enos
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Mona N. Fouad
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Marjorie Good
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - William J. Hicks
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Patrick J. Loehrer
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Alan P. Lyss
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Steven N. Wolff
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Debra M. Wujcik
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Neal J. Meropol
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Doroshow JH. Timely completion of scientifically rigorous cancer clinical trials: an unfulfilled priority. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31:3312-4. [PMID: 23960175 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2013.51.3192] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- James H Doroshow
- National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Terry SF, Shelton R, Biggers G, Baker D, Edwards K. The haystack is made of needles. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2013; 17:175-7. [PMID: 23428177 DOI: 10.1089/gtmb.2012.1542] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Sharon F Terry
- Genetic Alliance, Washington, District of Columbia 20008, USA.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Burt T, Dhillon S, Sharma P, Khan D, Mv D, Alam S, Jain S, Alapati B, Mittal S, Singh P. PARTAKE survey of public knowledge and perceptions of clinical research in India. PLoS One 2013; 8:e68666. [PMID: 23874712 PMCID: PMC3713007 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068666] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/10/2013] [Accepted: 05/31/2013] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND A public that is an informed partner in clinical research is important for ethical, methodological, and operational reasons. There are indications that the public is unaware or misinformed, and not sufficiently engaged in clinical research but studies on the topic are lacking. PARTAKE - Public Awareness of Research for Therapeutic Advancements through Knowledge and Empowerment is a program aimed at increasing public awareness and partnership in clinical research. The PARTAKE Survey is a component of the program. OBJECTIVE To study public knowledge and perceptions of clinical research. METHODS A 40-item questionnaire combining multiple-choice and open-ended questions was administered to 175 English- or Hindi-speaking individuals in 8 public locations representing various socioeconomic strata in New Delhi, India. RESULTS Interviewees were 18-84 old (mean: 39.6, SD ± 16.6), 23.6% female, 68.6% employed, 7.3% illiterate, 26.3% had heard of research, 2.9% had participated and 58.9% expressed willingness to participate in clinical research. The following perceptions were reported (% true/% false/% not aware): 'research benefits society' (94.1%/3.5%/2.3%), 'the government protects against unethical clinical research' (56.7%/26.3%/16.9%), 'research hospitals provide better care' (67.2%/8.7%/23.9%), 'confidentiality is adequately protected' (54.1%/12.3%/33.5%), 'participation in research is voluntary' (85.3%/5.8%/8.7%); 'participants treated like 'guinea pigs'' (20.7%/53.2%/26.0%), and 'compensation for participation is adequate' (24.7%/12.9%/62.3%). CONCLUSIONS Results suggest the Indian public is aware of some key features of clinical research (e.g., purpose, value, voluntary nature of participation), and supports clinical research in general but is unaware of other key features (e.g., compensation, confidentiality, protection of human participants) and exhibits some distrust in the conduct and reporting of clinical trials. Larger, cross-cultural surveys are required to inform educational programs addressing these issues.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tal Burt
- Duke Global Proof-of-Concept Research Network, Duke Clinical Research Unit & Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Baer AR, Michaels M, Good MJ, Schapira L. Engaging referring physicians in the clinical trial process. J Oncol Pract 2012; 8:e8-e10. [PMID: 22548019 DOI: 10.1200/jop.2011.000476] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/08/2011] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
By building relationships with referring physicians and educating them about the clinical trial process, oncologists can help increase trial accrual among patients with cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Allison R Baer
- American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; and Massachusetts General Hospital-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|