Science in the Heartland: Exploring determinants of offering cancer clinical trials in rural-serving community urology practices

Ethical considerations for referral partnerships in clinical research

Recruitment challenges in clinical research are widespread, particularly for traditionally under-represented groups. Referral relationships-in which research partners and clinical partners agree to collaborate on selected research studies or programmes, with the expectation that the clinical partners refer appropriate patients as potential participants-may help alleviate these challenges. Referral relationships allow research partners access to expanded and more diverse pools of participants by increasing the engagement of medical providers, leveraging providers' connections with patients and providing structural support for study participation. Clinical partners can also benefit from the resources offered by research involvement, and patients may benefit from improved access to studies. Yet despite their potential, referral relationships can raise ethical concerns. Here, we discuss ethical considerations for referral relationships in clinical research to address these concerns. When establishing relationships, fair participant selection should guide the sites and studies involved. When defining the terms of a relationship, partners should build trust and respect, collaborating so that health centres or hospitals and communities benefit from their research involvement with the mitigation of associated burdens. When implemented, referral relationships should continue to honour fair participant selection, reduce misunderstanding or miscommunication about research and protect patients' privacy and confidentiality. Overall, when conducted ethically, referral relationships can help address study recruitment challenges and promote fair access to research opportunities.

Stem cell therapy: a new hope for stroke and traumatic brain injury recovery and the challenge for rural minorities in South Carolina

Stroke and traumatic brain injury (TBI) are a significant cause of death and disability nationwide. Both are considered public health concerns in rural communities in the state of South Carolina (SC), particularly affecting the African American population resulting in considerable morbidity, mortality, and economic burden. Stem cell therapy (SCT) has emerged as a potential intervention for both diseases with increasing research trials showing promising results. In this perspective article, the authors aim to discuss the current research in the field of SCT, the results of early phase trials, and the utilization of outcome measures and biomarkers of recovery. We searched PubMed from inception to December 2023 for articles on stem cell therapy in stroke and traumatic brain injury and its impact on rural communities, particularly in SC. Early phase trials of SCT in Stroke and Traumatic Brain injury yield promising safety profile and efficacy results, but the findings have not yet been consistently replicated. Early trials using mesenchymal stem cells for stroke survivors showed safety, feasibility, and improved functional outcomes using broad and domain-specific outcome measures. Neuroimaging markers of recovery such as Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) combined with neuromodulation, although not widely used in SCT research, could represent a breakthrough when evaluating brain injury and its functional consequences. This article highlights the role of SCT as a promising intervention while addressing the underlying social determinants of health that affect therapeutic outcomes in relation to rural communities such as SC. It also addresses the challenges ethical concerns of stem cell sourcing, the high cost of autologous cell therapies, and the technical difficulties in ensuring transplanted cell survival and strategies to overcome barriers to clinical trial enrollment such as the ethical concerns of stem cell sourcing, the high cost of autologous cell therapies, and the technical difficulties in ensuring transplanted cell survival and equitable healthcare.

Rural research capacity: a co-created model for research success

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.

Interventions to improve access to clinical trials in urologic oncology

INTRODUCTION

Most cancer patients are never enrolled in clinical trials, resulting in missed potential therapeutic benefits to patients and barriers to drug development and approval. With a focus on urologic oncology clinical trials, we reviewed the current literature on barriers to accrual and present effective interventions to overcome these barriers.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for articles regarding physician referral and patient accrual to clinical trials in urologic oncology from January 2000 through June 2021. Studies were included if they were in English, related to clinical trial utilization or patient accrual in urologic oncology, peer-reviewed, primary research, survey, or systematic review, and pertained to clinical trials in the U.S. Major overlapping themes related to barriers to accrual and effective interventions were identified.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies met our inclusion criteria. Barriers fall into three categories: 1) provider; 2) patient; or 3) structural. Provider barriers include issues such as poor funding, logistical challenges, and time constraints. Patient barriers include cost, distrust of medical institutions, and lack of knowledge regarding ongoing studies. Structural barriers include lack of time and resources in community settings and difficulty with physician referrals. Effective strategies identified include increasing provider referrals through continuing education and referral pathways, increasing patient education through patient-centered marketing material, and decreasing structural barriers through patient navigation programs and community partnerships.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified barriers and potential multipronged strategies targeted at patients, providers, and practices to increase clinical trial enrollment. We hope these strategies will benefit patients and providers and facilitate research development.

Development of a co-designed behaviour change intervention aimed at healthcare professionals recruiting to clinical trials in maternity care

Background

The evidence on what strategies can improve recruitment to clinical trials in maternity care is lacking. As trial recruiters, maternity healthcare professionals (MHCPs) perform behaviours (e.g. talking about trials with potential participants, distributing trial information) they may not ordinarily do outside of the trial. Most trial recruitment interventions do not provide any theoretical basis for the potential effect (on behaviour) or describe if stakeholders were involved during development. The study aim was to use behavioural theory in a co-design process to develop an intervention for MHCPs tasked with approaching all eligible potential participants and inviting them to join a maternity trial and to assess the acceptability and feasibility of such an intervention.

Methods

This study applied a step-wise sequential mixed-methods approach. Key stages were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Techniques (BCT) Taxonomy to map the accounts of MHCPs, with regard to challenges to trial recruitment, to theoretically informed behaviour change strategies. Our recruitment intervention was co-designed during workshops with MHCPs and maternity service users. Acceptability and feasibility of our intervention was assessed using an online questionnaire based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) and involved a range of trial stakeholders.

Results

Two co-design workshops, with a total of nine participants (n = 7 MHCP, n = 2 maternity service users), discussed thirteen BCTs as potential solutions. Ten BCTs, broadly covering Consequences and Reframing, progressed to intervention development. Forty-five trial stakeholders (clinical midwives, research midwives/nurses, doctors, allied health professionals and trial team members) participated in the online TFA questionnaire. The intervention was perceived effective, coherent, and not burdensome to engage with. Core areas for future refinement included Anticipated opportunity and Self-efficacy.

Conclusion

We developed a behaviour change recruitment intervention which is based on the accounts of MHCP trial recruiters and developed in a co-design process. Overall, the intervention was deemed acceptable. Future evaluation of the intervention will establish its effectiveness in enabling MHCPs to invite all eligible people to participate in a maternity care trial, and determine whether this translates into an increase in maternity trial recruitment rates.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06816-6.

Access to urologists for participation in research: An analysis of NCI's Community Oncology Research Program landscape survey

Purpose

Urological cancer clinical trials face accrual challenges, which may stem from structural barriers within cancer programs. We sought to describe the extent to which urology cancer care providers are available within community cancer research programs and explore the role of oncology practice group ownership in their access to urology practices to participate in research.

Materials and methods

We conducted secondary analysis of organizational survey data collected in 2017 among National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program practice groups. We used logistic regression to assess the association of self-reported access to urologists to participate in research and oncology practice group ownership type: independent, payor-provider, health-system, or public ownership.

Results

Of the 209 community oncology practice groups in the analysis sample, 133 (63.6%) had access to urologists for research participation. Ownership was not statistically significantly associated with access to urology practices after controlling for other covariates (p = 0.4). Instead, having a hospital outpatient clinic (p = 0.008) and identifying as a safety-net hospital (p = 0.035) were both positively significantly associated with access to urologists to participate in research.

Conclusions

Two-thirds of community cancer research groups have access to urology. Oncology ownership status was not associated with access to urologists for research. Research groups may need support to increase their capacity to engage non-oncology cancer care providers in research.

The Impact of Commission on Cancer Accreditation Status, Hospital Rurality and Hospital Size on Quality Measure Performance Rates

BACKGROUND

Rural cancer patients receive lower-quality care and experience worse outcomes than urban patients. Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation requires hospitals to monitor performance on evidence-based quality measuresPlease confirm the list of authors is correc, but the impact of accreditation is not clear due to lack of data from non-accredited facilities and confounding between patient rurality and hospital accreditation, rurality, and size.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational study assessed associations between rurality, accreditation, size, and performance rates for four CoC quality measures (breast radiation, breast chemotherapy, colon chemotherapy, colon nodal yield). Iowa Cancer Registry data were queried to identify all eligible patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017. Cases were assigned to the surgery hospital to calculate performance rates. Univariate and multivariate regression models were fitted to identify patient- and hospital-level predictors and assess trends.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 10,381 patients; 46% were rural. Compared with urban patients, rural patients more often received treatment at small, rural, and non-accredited facilities (p < 0.001 for all). Rural hospitals had fewer beds and were far less likely to be CoC-accredited than urban hospitals (p < 0.001 for all). On multivariate analysis, CoC accreditation was the strongest, independent predictor of higher hospital performance for all quality measures evaluated (p < 0.05 in each model). Performance rates significantly improved over time only for the colon nodal yield quality measure, and only in urban hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

CoC accreditation requires monitoring and evaluating performance on quality measures, which likely contributes to better performance on these measures. Efforts to support rural hospital accreditation may improve existing disparities in rural cancer treatment and outcomes.

A Framework for Equitable Partnerships to Promote Cancer Prevention and Control in Rural Settings

Rural populations continue to experience persistent cancer disparities compared with urban populations particularly in cancers that can be prevented or detected early through screening and vaccination. Although the National Cancer Institute and the larger cancer research community have identified rural community partnerships as the foundation for reducing the disparities, we have identified limited application of community-based participatory research in cancer prevention and control research. Guided by the Community-Based Participatory Research Conceptual Model and our collective experience, we provide a framework for a community-cancer center partnership that focuses on promoting health equity. In this commentary, we articulate that the partnership process must foster capacity for communities and cancer centers, strive for rural representation in clinical trials and biobanking, build a pipeline for dissemination and implementation research, and create a bidirectional flow of knowledge between communities and academic institutions. Authentic partnerships with rural communities should be the ultimate goal of cancer centers, and the process described in this commentary can serve as an initial platform to build capacity and continue to strive toward that goal.

Physician perceived barriers and facilitators for self-measured blood pressure monitoring- a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Improving hypertension management is a national priority that can decrease morbidity and mortality. Evidence-based hypertension management guidelines advocate self-measured BP (SMBP), but widespread implementation of SMBP is lacking. The purpose of this study was to describe the perspective of primary care physicians (PCPs) on SMBP to identify the barriers and facilitators for implementing SMBP.

METHODS

We collected data from PCPs from a large health system using semi-structured interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Responses were recorded, transcribed, and qualitatively analyzed into three overarching TDF domains based on the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW): 1) Motivation 2) Opportunity and 3) Capabilities. The sample size was based on theme saturation.

RESULTS

All 17 participating PCPs believed that SMBP is a useful, but underutilized tool. Although individual practices varied, most physicians felt that the increased data points from SMBP allowed for better hypertension management. Most felt that overcoming existing barriers would be difficult, but identified several facilitators: physician support of SMBP, the possibility of having other trained health professionals to assist with SMBP and patient education; improving patient engagement and empowerment with SMBP, and the interest of the health system in using technology to improve hypertension management.

CONCLUSION

PCPs believe that SMBP can improve hypertension management. There are numerous barriers and facilitators for implementing SMBP. Successful implementation in clinical practice will require implementation strategies targeted at increasing patient acceptability and reducing physician workload. This may need a radical change in the current methods of managing hypertension.

A patient-focused, theory-guided approach to survey design identified barriers to and drivers of clinical trial participation

OBJECTIVES

Despite clear evidence showing that many clinical trials fail or are delayed because of poor patient recruitment, there is surprisingly little empirically supported guidance for trialists seeking to optimize their trial recruitment strategies. We propose that the challenges of recruitment can be better understood and addressed by thinking of research participation as one or more behaviors, subject to the same forces as other human behaviors. In this article, we describe an adaptable, behavioral theory-driven approach for designing pretrial surveys of the barriers and drivers relevant to trial participation. Instead of proposing a single survey instrument intended to be used uniformly across many situations, we propose that tailored surveys be informed by a common comprehensive, theory-guided development approach that ensures all domains potentially guiding participation are considered.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We used the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), which organizes over 100 constructs known to be associated with behavior and behavior change into 14 domains that describe determinants of professional and patient health behaviors, to inform the development of tailored surveys about barriers to and drivers of clinical trial participation. After searching the literature for barriers and drivers to trial recruitment relevant to each of the TDF domains, we developed separate surveys for members of two national health charities (Canadian Breast Cancer Network, Huntington Society of Canada) to exemplify how the approach can be adapted across settings. We conducted think-aloud interviews with members of each group to maximize the clarity and usability of the surveys, elicited opinions about which barriers/drivers were relevant for each patient group, and identified additional barriers/drivers. Interviews proceeded iteratively with changes incorporated into subsequent interviews. Here, we describe our two target patient groups, as well as our process of modifying, adding, and deleting barrier/driver items for each group and across theoretical domains.

RESULTS

We interviewed 8 women with a history of breast cancer from the Canadian Breast Cancer Network (48-65 year old) and 11 Huntington Disease community members (9 women) from the Huntington Society of Canada (26-70 year old). After the iterative development interviews, the breast cancer group had identified 38 barriers/drivers thought relevant to their participation in clinical trials across 12 TDF domains. The Huntington group identified 47 items across 13 TDF domains.

CONCLUSION

Our patient-focused and theory-guided approach was able to identify a more comprehensive range of barriers to and drivers of trial participation than existing published tools. Our approach is also more broadly adaptable than such tools, in that it uses a theoretical framework and in-depth piloting to generate a set of items tailored to each specific clinical area, rather than a single set of items intended to be applicable to all situations. This theory-guided approach also enables more specific recruitment strategies to be developed once domain-specific barriers are known, potentially optimizing participation for a given trial and helping build a cumulative evidence of barriers/drivers and strategies for addressing them.

Optimizing management of acute leukemia in community centers and when to refer

Treatment of acute leukemia has been delivered predominantly in academic and larger leukemia treatment centers with the infrastructure and staff needed to manage patients receiving complex therapeutic regimens and supportive care. However, in recent years, several oral agents and less-myelosuppressive regimens were approved, making it possible for these patients to receive therapy in smaller community hospitals and oncology office practices. In this review, we discuss the optimum community setting, type of patient who can be treated, agents that can be applied, and an appropriate clinical circumstance in which a referral to a tertiary center should be made.

Precision community: a mixed methods study to identify determinants of adoption and implementation of targeted cancer therapy in community oncology

Background

Precision medicine has enormous potential to improve cancer outcomes. Over one third of the 1.5 million Americans diagnosed with cancer each year have genetic mutations that could be targeted with an FDA-approved drug to treat their disease more effectively. However, the current uptake of targeted cancer therapy in clinical practice is suboptimal. Tumor testing is not widely used, and treatments based on molecular and genomic profiling are often not prescribed when indicated. Challenges with the uptake of precision medicine may disproportionately impact cancer patients in rural communities and other underserved populations. The objective of this study is to identify the determinants of adoption and implementation of precision cancer therapy to design an implementation strategy for community oncology practices, including those in rural areas.

Methods

This study is an explanatory sequential mixed methods study to identify factors associated with the use of targeted cancer therapy. Levels of targeted therapy use will be ascertained by secondary analysis of medical records to identify concordance with 18 national guideline recommendations for use of precision medicine in the treatment of breast, colorectal, lung, and melanoma skin cancer. Concurrently, facilitators and barriers associated with the use of precision cancer therapy will be elicited from interviews with up to a total of 40 oncologists, administrators, pathology, and pharmacy staff across the participating sites. Qualitative analysis will be a template analysis based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. Quantitative data aggregated at the practice level will be used to rank oncology practices’ adherence to targeted cancer therapy guidelines. Determinants will be compared among high and low users to isolate factors likely to facilitate targeted therapy use. The study will be conducted in eight community oncology practices, with an estimated 4121 targeted therapy treatment decision-making opportunities over a 3-year period.

Discussion

Despite unprecedented investment in precision medicine, translation into practice is suboptimal. Our study will identify factors associated with the uptake of precision medicine in community settings. These findings will inform future interventions to increase equitable uptake of evidence-based targeted cancer treatment.

Development, acceptability, appropriateness and appeal of a cancer clinical trials implementation intervention for rural- and minority-serving urology practices

Background

Few community urologists offer cancer patients the opportunity to participate in cancer clinical trials, despite national guidelines that recommend it, depriving an estimated 260,000 urological cancer patients of guideline-concordant care each year. Existing strategies to increase urologists’ offer of clinical trials are designed for resource-rich environments and are not feasible for many community urologists. We sought to design an implementation intervention for dissemination in under-resourced community urology practices and to compare its acceptability, appropriateness and adoption appeal among trial-naïve and trial-experienced urologists.

Methods

We used a design-for-dissemination approach, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behavior Change Wheel, to match determinants of the clinical trial offer to theoretically informed implementation strategies. We described the implementation intervention in evaluation workshops offered at urology professional society meetings. We surveyed participants to assess the implementation intervention’s acceptability and appropriateness using validated instruments. We also measured adoption appeal, intention to adopt and previous trial offer.

Results

Our design process resulted in a multi-modal implementation intervention, comprised of multiple implementation strategies designed to address six domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework. Evaluation workshops delivered at four meetings, convened five separate professional societies. Sixty-one percent of those offered an opportunity to participate in the implementation intervention indicated intention to adopt. Average implementation intervention acceptability and appropriateness ratings were 4.4 and 4.4 (out of 5), respectively. Acceptability scores were statistically significantly higher among those offering trials compared to those not (p = 0.03). Appropriateness scores did not differ between those offering trials and those not (p = 0.24). After urologists ranked their top three innovation attributes, 43% of urologists included practice reputation in their top three reasons for offering clinical trials; 30% listed practice differentiation among their top three reasons. No statistically significant differences were found between those who offered trials and those who did not among any of the innovation attributes.

Conclusions

LEARN|INFORM|RECRUIT is a promising implementation intervention to address low accrual to clinical trials, poised for implementation and effectiveness testing. The implementation intervention is appealing to its target audience and may have equal uptake among trial-naïve and trial-experienced practices.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3658-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.