Barriers and facilitators to recruitment of underrepresented research participants: Perspectives of clinical research coordinators

Building a Digital Health Research Platform to Enable Recruitment, Enrollment, Data Collection, and Follow-Up for a Highly Diverse Longitudinal US Cohort of 1 Million People in the All of Us Research Program: Design and Implementation Study

BACKGROUND

Longitudinal cohort studies have traditionally relied on clinic-based recruitment models, which limit cohort diversity and the generalizability of research outcomes. Digital research platforms can be used to increase participant access, improve study engagement, streamline data collection, and increase data quality; however, the efficacy and sustainability of digitally enabled studies rely heavily on the design, implementation, and management of the digital platform being used.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to design and build a secure, privacy-preserving, validated, participant-centric digital health research platform (DHRP) to recruit and enroll participants, collect multimodal data, and engage participants from diverse backgrounds in the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) All of Us Research Program (AOU). AOU is an ongoing national, multiyear study aimed to build a research cohort of 1 million participants that reflects the diversity of the United States, including minority, health-disparate, and other populations underrepresented in biomedical research (UBR).

METHODS

We collaborated with community members, health care provider organizations (HPOs), and NIH leadership to design, build, and validate a secure, feature-rich digital platform to facilitate multisite, hybrid, and remote study participation and multimodal data collection in AOU. Participants were recruited by in-person, print, and online digital campaigns. Participants securely accessed the DHRP via web and mobile apps, either independently or with research staff support. The participant-facing tool facilitated electronic informed consent (eConsent), multisource data collection (eg, surveys, genomic results, wearables, and electronic health records [EHRs]), and ongoing participant engagement. We also built tools for research staff to conduct remote participant support, study workflow management, participant tracking, data analytics, data harmonization, and data management.

RESULTS

We built a secure, participant-centric DHRP with engaging functionality used to recruit, engage, and collect data from 705,719 diverse participants throughout the United States. As of April 2024, 87% (n=613,976) of the participants enrolled via the platform were from UBR groups, including racial and ethnic minorities (n=282,429, 46%), rural dwelling individuals (n=49,118, 8%), those over the age of 65 years (n=190,333, 31%), and individuals with low socioeconomic status (n=122,795, 20%).

CONCLUSIONS

We built a participant-centric digital platform with tools to enable engagement with individuals from different racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds and other UBR groups. This DHRP demonstrated successful use among diverse participants. These findings could be used as best practices for the effective use of digital platforms to build and sustain cohorts of various study designs and increase engagement with diverse populations in health research.

Factors Influencing Immunotherapy Utilization in Stage IV Pancreatic Cancer: Impact of Race and Socioeconomics in the U.S

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), a highly lethal cancer with a poor prognosis, is expected to become the second deadliest cancer in the United States by 2030. Despite advancements in treatment modalities, the survival rates of patients with PDAC have remained low. Immunotherapy has emerged as a promising treatment for various cancers; however, its utilization in PDAC has been limited due to various challenges, including resistance mechanisms and the advanced stage at which most patients are diagnosed.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2010 to 2017, focusing on the impact of race, insurance status, and socioeconomic factors among patients with stage IV PDAC using logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Among 109,663 patients with stage IV PDAC, 421 (0.38%) received immunotherapy. The recipients were younger (median age 63 vs. 68 years, p < 0.001) and more likely to be white (87.4% vs. 82.1%). Patients with private insurance or Medicare (p < 0.001), and those earning more than $60 k annually (51.0% vs. 36.4%, p < 0.001) were more likely to receive immunotherapy. Treatment was more likely in academic/research programs than in community cancer programs (53.0% vs. 33.4%, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, Black patients had lower odds of receiving immunotherapy than Caucasian patients (OR: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.601-0.882], p = 0.019). Higher income was also a significant predictor of immunotherapy utilization (highest vs. lowest income quartile: OR, 2.228 [95% CI: 1.422-3.491], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed significant disparities in immunotherapy access for stage IV PDAC based on race, socioeconomic status, and geographic location in the United States, highlighting the need for intervention to promote equitable access to this promising treatment modality.

Pilot training for clinical research professionals in using empathy to recognize and respond to implicit bias in research recruitment and retention

Recruiting and retaining research participants is challenging because it often requires overcoming structural barriers and addressing how histories of mistrust and individuals' lived experiences affect their research engagement. We describe a pilot workshop designed to educate clinical research professionals on using empathy skills to recognize and mitigate bias to improve recruitment and retention. In a post-workshop survey (22/31 participants completed), 94% agreed the workshop helped them practice perspective-taking, recognize implicit bias, and identify opportunities for empathy. Participants reported increased confidence in key recruitment and retention skills (p < 0.05). Future studies will evaluate whether this translates into improved recruitment.

Community-Engaged Approaches for Improving the Inclusion of Diverse Communities in a Nutrition Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiometabolic disease (CMD) disproportionately affects African American/Black (AA) and Latino communities. CMD disparities are exacerbated by their underrepresentation in clinical trials for CMD treatments including nutritional interventions. The study aimed to (1) form a precision nutrition community consultant panel (PNCCP) representative of Latino and AA communities in Los Angeles to identify barriers and facilitators to recruitment and retention of diverse communities into nutrition clinical trials and (2) develop culturally informed strategies to improve trial diversity.

METHODS

A deliberative community engagement approach was used to form a PNCCP for the Nutrition for Precision Health (NPH) trial, part of the of the All of Us research initiative. The PNCCP included individuals that provide services for Latino and AA communities who met during 11 virtual sessions over 1 year. Discussion topics included enhancing recruitment and cultural acceptance of the NPH trial. We summarized CCP recommendations by theme using an inductive qualitative approach.

RESULTS

The PNCCP included 17 adults (35% AA, 47% Latino). Four thematic recommendations emerged: reducing structural barriers to recruitment, the need for recruitment materials to be culturally tailored and participant-centered, community-engaged trial recruitment, and making nutrition trial procedures inclusive and acceptable. We outlined the study response to feedback, including the constraints that limited implementation of suggestions.

CONCLUSION

This study centers community voices regarding the recruitment and retention of AA and Latino communities into a nutrition clinical trial. It highlights the importance of community engagement early on in protocol development and maintaining flexibility to enhance inclusion of diverse communities in nutrition clinical trials.

PROGRESS: A patient-centered engagement infrastructure and multi-level approach to enrich diversity, equity, and inclusion in a national randomized online behavioral pain treatment study

Twenty percent of individuals experience chronic pain worldwide posing significant challenges to those living with it. Pain research is crucial for developing and characterizing effective strategies to reduce the burden of chronic pain. Traditional research approaches often yield homogeneous study samples that poorly generalize and have unknown applicability across diverse patient populations. The Pain Relief with Online Groups that Empower Skills-based Symptom Reduction (PROGRESS) study aims to address disparities in pain research engagement and patient outcomes through the intentional inclusion of people with varied backgrounds and experiences of pain, and through a multilevel design informed by diverse stakeholder recommendations. The composition of three advisory boards (Patient Engagement and Diversity Board, Local Patient Advisory Board, and the National Patient Advisory Panel) prioritized diversity in patient/expert advisor background, geographic location, race, and ethnicity. Our engagement approach aligns with the Foundational Expectations for Partnerships in Research by Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), which emphasizes diverse representation, early and ongoing engagement, dedicated funds for advisor compensation, collaborative decision making, meaningful participation, and continuous assessment. The first 24 months of study advisor engagement has yielded multiple recruitment strategies resulting in a study population enriched with a breadth of identities within PROGRESS (e.g., inclusive patient-facing materials). Lessons learned underscore the importance of investing time in building patient and stakeholder relationships, trust, and embracing diverse viewpoints amongst the study team. PROGRESS demonstrates the potential of diverse patient-centered engagement to support evidence-based outcomes and practices that are more inclusive, equitable, and representative of the broader population. PERSPECTIVE: The PROGRESS study demonstrates how diverse patient engagement and inclusive advisory boards enhance research outcomes. By aligning with PCORI standards and employing innovative recruitment strategies, it highlights the vital role of stakeholder relationships and diverse perspectives. Key lessons learned emphasize adaptive strategies and continuous feedback for advancing equitable pain research.

The Multi-Institutional Medullary Thyroid Cancer Collaborative Registry: Can a Rare Tumor Registry Accurately Represent the Real-World Patient Population?

Background: Large population-based registries, such as the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Registry, help in the study of rare tumors, including medullary thyroid cancer (MTC), but lack data to understand the natural history of the disease. The Medullary Thyroid Cancer Collaborative Registry (MTCCoRe) is an exhaustive multi-institutional collection of demographic, clinical, and pathological data. To determine the extent to which MTCCoRe represents the real-world MTC population, we compared the characteristics of patients enrolled in MTCCoRe with patients enrolled in population-based cancer registries. Methods: Comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics of MTC patients who were enrolled in MTCCoRe, Texas Cancer Registry (TCR), California Cancer Registry (CCR), and SEER between 1995 and 2018. Results: A total of 1416 patients were identified in MTCCoRe, 329 in TCR, 2105 in CCR, and 3820 in SEER. Percentages of patients 20-54 years in MTCCoRe were 58.0%, 50.2% in TCR, 47.2% in CCR, and 44.8% in SEER (p < 0.0001). About half of the patients were female (55.9% in MTCCoRe, 61.4% in TCR, 59% in CCR, and 57.5% in SEER (p = 0.3). Percentages of Hispanic and Black patients differed among cohorts (10.1% and 3.8% for MTCCoRe, 23.7% and 8.2% for TCR, 24.8% and 4.9% in CCR, and 15.9% and 8.2% for SEER, respectively; p < 0.001). MTCCoRe patients presented with more advanced T and N classifications than patients in the other registries (MTCCoRe, 28.6% T3-4 and 49.4% N1; TCR, 12.7% and 32.2%; CCR, 18.6% and 32.4%; and SEER, 24% and 37.8%; p < 0.0001). Prevalence of M1 disease was 10% in MTCCoRe, 11.9% in TCR, 14.1% in CCR, and 9.5% in SEER (p < 0.0001). In the MTCCoRe, 11.4% underwent systemic therapy (compared with 0.3% in TCR and 5.6% in CCR). Conclusions: The clinicodemographic profile of patients with MTC enrolled in a multi-institutional registry differs from those enrolled in population-based databases, with lower proportions of Hispanic and Black patients but additive data on treatment modalities. Moving forward, MTCCoRe and other registry and clinical trial enrollment efforts should intentionally include underrepresented groups via community engagement techniques, patient stakeholder involvement, and inclusion of languages other than English in study materials to yield more generalizable results and conclusions.