The Influence of Race on the Attitudes of Radiation Oncology Patients Towards Clinical Trial Enrollment

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.

Community engagement and clinical trial diversity: Navigating barriers and co-designing solutions-A report from the "Health Equity through Diversity" seminar series

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, there has been increasing awareness of the lack of diversity among clinical trial participants. Equitable representation is key when testing novel therapeutic and non-therapeutic interventions to ensure safety and efficacy across populations. Unfortunately, in the United States (US), racial and ethnic minority populations continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials compared to their White counterparts.

METHODS

Two webinars in a four-part series, titled "Health Equity through Diversity," were held to discuss solutions for advancing health equity through diversifying clinical trials and addressing medical mistrust in communities. Each webinar was 1.5 hours long, beginning with panelist discussions followed by breakout rooms where moderators led discussions related to health equity and scribes recorded each room's conversations. The diverse groups of panelists included community members, civic representatives, clinician-scientists, and biopharmaceutical representatives. Scribe notes from discussions were collected and thematically analyzed to uncover the central themes.

RESULTS

The first two webinars were attended by 242 and 205 individuals, respectively. The attendees represented 25 US states, four countries outside the US, and shared various backgrounds including community members, clinician/researchers, government organizations, biotechnology/biopharmaceutical professionals, and others. Barriers to clinical trial participation are broadly grouped into the themes of access, awareness, discrimination and racism, and workforce diversity. Participants noted that innovative, community-engaged, co-designed solutions are essential.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite racial and ethnic minority groups making up nearly half of the US population, underrepresentation in clinical trials remains a critical challenge. The community engaged co-developed solutions detailed in this report to address access, awareness, discrimination and racism, and workforce diversity are critical to advancing clinical trial diversity.

Enrollment of Participants From Marginalized Racial and Ethnic Groups: A Comparative Assessment of the STEADY-PD III and SURE-PD3 Trials

Background and Objectives

Representation of persons from marginalized racial and ethnic groups in Parkinson disease (PD) trials has been low, limiting the generalizability of therapeutic options for individuals with PD. Two large phase 3 randomized clinical trials sponsored by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), STEADY-PD III and SURE-PD3, screened participants from overlapping Parkinson Study Group clinical sites under similar eligibility criteria but differed in participation by underrepresented minorities. The goal of this research is to compare recruitment strategies of PD participants belonging to marginalized racial and ethnic groups.

Methods

A total of 998 participants with identified race and ethnicity consented to STEADY-PD III and SURE-PD3 from 86 clinical sites. Demographics, clinical trial characteristics, and recruitment strategies were compared. NINDS imposed a minority recruitment mandate on STEADY-PD III but not SURE-PD3.

Results

Ten percent of participants who consented to STEADY-PD III self-identified as belonging to marginalized racial and ethnic groups compared to 6.5% in SURE-PD3 (difference = 3.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4%-7.5%, p value = 0.034). This difference persisted after screening (10.1% of patients in STEADY-PD III vs 5.4% in SURE-PD 3, difference = 4.7%, 95% CI 0.6%-8.8%, p value = 0.038).

Discussion

Although both trials targeted similar participants, STEADY-PD III was able to consent and recruit a higher percentage of patients from racial and ethnic marginalized groups. Possible reasons include differential incentives for achieving minority recruitment goals.

Trial Registration Information

This study used data from The Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy Assessment of Isradipine for Parkinson Disease (STEADY-PD III; NCT02168842) and the Study of Urate Elevation in Parkinson's Disease (SURE-PD3; NCT02642393).

Development of a Plain Language Decision Support Tool for Cancer Clinical Trials: Blending Health Literacy, Academic Research, and Minority Patient Perspectives

Despite the promise of clinical trials for improving cancer care, less than 5% of all cancer patients participate. Racial/ethnic minorities continue to be underrepresented in cancer clinical trials (CCTs). To address this gap, we developed a plain language, web-based decision support tool (CHOICES DST) in English and Spanish to support decision-making about CCTs among Blacks and Hispanics. In phase 1 (information collection), we conducted qualitative interviews with 45 cancer patients, completed a thorough literature review, and reviewed results from a telephone survey of 1100 cancer patients. In phase 2 (content generation), we created the first iteration of the CHOICES DST. In phase 3 (usability testing), we gathered user experience and acceptability data from a small sample of cancer survivors (n = 9). The Knowledge, Empowerment, and Values Clarification (KEV) model of decision-making was developed based on data from phase 1. The KEV model and other phase 1 data allowed us to create the CHOICES DST platform. Usability testing of the CHOICES DST showed highly favorable responses from users, satisfaction with content, ease of navigation, and a desire to use the tool. Qualitative results identified addressable points that would benefit from content and navigation-related alterations. The final version of the CHOICES DST was well received and understood by Black and Hispanic participants, and adheres to the mandates for plain language communication. This research provides preliminary data that CHOICES DST holds promise for improving knowledge of CCTs and potentially improving informed decision-making about participation in trials.

Impact of migrancy on cancer clinical trial participation: Factors associated with approach and consent in Australian-born versus migrant groups

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study compared rates of clinical trial participation and perceived adequacy of information provided prior to consent in migrant and Australian-born cancer patients, and explored factors associated with being approached and agreeing to participate.

METHODS

We utilized data from a larger cross-sectional survey assessing disparities in patient-reported outcomes in Chinese, Arabic, or Greek migrant versus English-speaking Australian-born cancer patients. Participants completed a questionnaire eliciting demographic and disease details, communication challenges, whether invited and consented to a clinical trial, and if so, adequacy of information received.

RESULTS

A total of 566 migrants (142 Arabic, 251 Chinese, and 173 Greek) and 270 English-speaking Australian-born patients participated. Overall, 25% were approached to participate in clinical trials, and of these, 74% consented. Migrants were significantly less likely to consent if asked to participate in clinical trials (P = .009), and fewer migrants (67.2%) reported receiving sufficient information prior to deciding on trial participation (82.1%; P = .04). Perceived understanding of the health system (odds ratio [OR] = 0.71), confidence in speaking (OR = 0.75), ability to understand English (OR = 0.80), and communicate with doctors in English (OR = 0.81) were significantly related to patients' likelihood of being approached to participate in clinical trials. Perceived understanding of the health system (OR = 0.66) was significantly associated with patients agreeing to take part in cancer clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings identified that barriers to migrants' self-reported participation in clinical trials include perceived lack of understanding of the health system and low English proficiency. Strategies that address these barriers are needed to increase migrant patients' participation in cancer clinical trials.

Evaluating stress, satisfaction and the associated influencing factors of participants in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional study in China

OBJECTIVES

Patients' stress and satisfaction concerning cancer clinical trials (CCT) may affect study accrual and quality. Our study aimed to evaluate stress and satisfaction in CCT and the influencing factors.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis done by a questionnaire after informed consent.

SETTING

Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences.

PARTICIPANTS

199 CCT participants. Primary and secondary outcome measures self-assessed stress and satisfaction in CCT.

RESULTS

Among 199 participants, 83.9% would join CCT again; 72.9% had enough time to decide on trial participation; 73.9% claimed complete awareness of CCT; 3.5% doubted CCT's significance and scientific quality; 33.2% deemed CCT time-consuming; 73.9% scored satisfaction ≥9/10; and 25.6% claimed moderate to severe stress. Positive factors for satisfaction were enough decision time (OR=0.36, p=0.0003), better impressions of doctors (OR=0.41, p=0.047) and less time-consuming trials (OR=0.43, p<0.0001). Individuals with more prior uninsured medical expenses (OR=1.23, p=0.026), less time consumption (OR=2.35, p<0.0001) and more tests in CCT (OR=0.64, p=0.035) were less likely to experience stress. Phase III study participants bore less stress than phase II (OR=0.29, p=0.032) but more than phase I (OR=1.18, p=0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study addressed factors influencing CCT participants' stress and satisfaction. We suggested measures to improve patients' experiences in CCT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03412344; Pre-results.

An Analysis of Recruitment Efficiency for an End-of-Life Advance Care Planning Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND:

Optimizing recruitment efficiency is an important strategy to address the resource limitations that typically constrain clinical research. Surprisingly, little empiric data exist to guide research teams attempting to recruit a difficult population into similar studies. Our objective was to investigate factors associated with enrollment into an advance care planning interventional trial.

METHODS:

This study used secondary data of patients with advanced cancer receiving treatment at an academic medical center in central Pennsylvania who were referred to a randomized controlled trial of an advance care planning intervention. Enrolled participants were compared to nonparticipants with regard to age, gender, race, season of recruitment, elapsed time between recruitment stage, distance to study site, and number of recruitment calls.

RESULTS:

Of the 1988 patients referred, 200 participants were enrolled yielding a recruitment efficiency of 10%. Two-thirds of all enrolled participants were recruited with 1 or less phone calls, whereas only 5% were enrolled after 3 calls. There were no statistically significant differences in enrollment based on gender ( P = .88) or elapsed time between recruitment contacts ( P = .22). However, nonparticipants were slightly older ( P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS:

Our finding that individuals were more likely to enroll within the first 3 phone calls suggests that recruitment efforts should be focused on making initial contacts with potential participants, rather than continuing attempts to those who are unable to be contacted easily. Researchers could optimize their recruitment strategy by periodically performing similar analyses, comparing differences between participants and nonparticipants.

Afterword: returning to philosophical foundations in research ethics

This is an afterword to the JME symposium on the benefit/risk ratio challenge in clinical research, and the case of HIV cure. It notes implications of the symposium for research ethics in general.

Analysis of Factors Affecting Successful Clinical Trial Enrollment in the Context of Three Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

Challenges can arise when attempting to maximize patient enrollment in clinical trials. There have been limited studies focusing on the barriers to enrollment and the efficacy of alternative study design to improve accrual. We analyzed barriers to clinical trial enrollment, particularly the influence of timing, in context of three prospective, randomized oncology trials where one arm was considered more aggressive than the other.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From June 2011 to March 2015, patients who were enrolled on 3 prospective institutional protocols (an oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer [NSCLC] trial and 2 proton vs intensity modulated radiation therapy trials in NSCLC and esophageal cancer) were screened for protocol eligibility. Eligible candidates were approached about trial participation, and patient characteristics (age, sex, T/N categorization) were recorded along with details surrounding trial presentation (appointment number). Fisher's exact test, Student's t tests, and multivariate analysis were performed to assess differences between enrolled and refusal patients.

RESULTS

A total of 309 eligible patients were approached about trial enrollment. The enrollment success rate during this time span was 52% (n=160 patients). Enrolled patients were more likely to be presented trial information at an earlier appointment (oligometastatic protocol: 5 vs 3 appointments [P<.001]; NSCLC protocol: 4 vs 3 appointments [P=.0018]; esophageal protocol: 3 vs 2 appointments [P=.0086]). No other factors or patient characteristics significantly affected enrollment success rate.

CONCLUSION

Improvement in enrollment rates for randomized control trials is possible, even in difficult accrual settings. Earlier presentation of trial information to patients is the most influential factor for success and may help overcome accrual barriers without compromising trial design.

African American Participation in Oncology Clinical Trials--Focus on Prostate Cancer: Implications, Barriers, and Potential Solutions

In the United States, the incidence and mortality rates of many cancers, especially prostate cancer, are disproportionately high among African American men compared with Caucasian men. Recently, mortality rates for prostate cancer have declined more rapidly in African American versus Caucasian men, but prostate cancer is still the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in African American men in the United States. Compared with Caucasian men, prostate cancer occurs at younger ages, has a higher stage at diagnosis, and is more likely to progress after definitive treatments in African American men. Reasons for racial discrepancies in cancer are multifactorial and potentially include socioeconomic, cultural, nutritional, and biologic elements. In addition to improving access to novel therapies, clinical trial participation is essential to adequately establish the risks and benefits of treatments in African American populations. Considering the disproportionately high mortality rates noted in these groups, our understanding of the natural history and responses to therapies is limited. This review will explore African American underrepresentation in clinical trials with a focus on prostate cancer, and potentially effective strategies to engage African American communities in prostate cancer research. Solutions targeting physicians, investigators, the community, and health care systems are identified. Improvement of African American participation in prostate cancer clinical trials will benefit all stakeholders.

Using informed consent to save trust

Increasingly, bioethicists defend informed consent as a safeguard for trust in caretakers and medical institutions.This paper discusses an ‘ideal type’ of that move. What I call the trust-promotion argument for informed consent states:1. Social trust, especially trust in caretakers and medical institutions, is necessary so that, for example,people seek medical advice, comply with it, and participate in medical research.2. Therefore, it is usually wrong to jeopardise that trust.3. Coercion, deception, manipulation and other violations of standard informed consent requirements seriously jeopardise that trust.4. Thus, standard informed consent requirements are justified.This article describes the initial promise of this argument, then identifies challenges to it. As I show, the value of trust fails to account for some common sense intuitions about informed consent. We should revise the argument, common sense morality, or both.

Under-representation of racial minorities in prostate cancer studies submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration to support potential marketing approval, 1993-2013

BACKGROUND

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of new drugs depends on results from clinical trials that must be generalized to the US population. However, racial minorities are frequently under-represented in clinical studies. The enrollment of racial minorities was compared in key clinical studies submitted to the FDA in the last 10 years in support of potential marketing approval for prostate cancer (PCa) prevention or treatment.

METHODS

Patient demographic data were obtained from archival data sets of large registration trials submitted to the FDA to support proposed PCa indications. Six countries/regions were analyzed: the United States, Canada, Australia, Europe, the United Kingdom, and Eastern Europe. Background racial demographics were collected from national census data.

RESULTS

Seventeen key PCa clinical trials were analyzed. These trials were conducted in the past 20 years, comprising 39,574 patients with known racial information. Most patients were enrolled in the United States, but there appeared to be a trend toward increased non-US enrollment over time. In all countries, racial minorities were generally under-represented. There was no significant improvement in racial minority enrollment over time. The United States enrolled the largest nonwhite population (7.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past 20 years, racial minorities were consistently under-represented in key PCa trials. There is a need for effective measures that will improve enrollment of racial minorities. With increased global enrollment, drug developers should aim to recruit a patient population that resembles the racial demographics of the patient population to which drug use will be generalized upon approval.

Increasing Asian American participation in clinical trials by addressing community concerns

Background Asian Americans are underrepresented in clinical trials, but little is known about the factors that contribute to clinical trial participation in this population. Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify knowledge, barriers, facilitators, and cultural influences on participating in clinical trials among three Asian American ethnic groups. Concurrently, we sought to identify mechanisms and messages to facilitate dissemination of information and to identify strategies to promote clinical trial participation in this population. Methods Eight focus groups were conducted (n = 103) with Chinese (four groups), Korean (two groups), and Vietnamese (two groups) Americans. Each group was conducted with a moderator and a translator using a standardized guide. Results Participants discuss the benefits of contributing to science, future generations, and their families by being in clinical trials. Some participants think clinical trials would give hope to those with terminal illnesses. A doctor's recommendation, being sick, and needing more options for treatment are motivators for Asian Americans. Having some guarantee of treatment effectiveness and lack of side effects facilitates participation. Cultural or religious beliefs are not believed to prevent clinical trial participation. Limitations This qualitative, two-site study included three Asian American ethnic groups and is not meant to establish prevalence of beliefs. Conclusion Asian Americans need more information about clinical trials and their benefits to science and the larger community. Health-care providers can play pivotal roles in enhancing recruitment of Asian Americans. Basing recruitment goals on percentage representation in most US geographic areas does not provide sufficient numbers to allow for analysis of minorities like Asian American groups. The discovery of important group-specific harms and benefits depends on greater participation of racial/ethnic subgroups.

An institutional strategy to increase minority recruitment to therapeutic trials

PURPOSE

Participation in therapeutic clinical trials rarely reflects the race and ethnic composition of the patient population. To meet National Institutes of Health-mandated goals, strategies to increase participation are required. We present a framework for institutional enhancement of minority clinical trial accrual.

METHODS

We implemented structural changes on four levels to induce and sustain minority accrual to clinical trials: (1) leadership support; (2) center-wide policy change; (3) infrastructural process control, data analysis, and reporting; and (4) follow-up with clinical investigators. A Protocol Review and Monitoring Committee reviews studies and monitors accrual, and the Program for the Elimination Cancer Disparities leads efforts for proportional accrual, supporting the system through data tracking, Web tools, and feedback to investigators.

RESULTS

Following implementation in 2005, minority accrual to therapeutic trials increased from 12.0 % in 2005 to 14.0 % in 2010. The "rolling average" minority cancer incidence at the institution during this timeframe was 17.5 %. In addition to therapeutic trial accrual rates, we note significant increase in the number of minorities participating in all trials (therapeutic and nontherapeutic) from 2005 to 2010 (346-552, 60 % increase, p < 0.05) compared to a 52 % increase for Caucasians.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing a system to aid investigators in planning and establishing targets for accrual, while requiring this component as a part of annual protocol review and monitoring of accrual, offers a successful strategy that can be replicated in other cancer centers, an approach that may extend to other clinical and translational research centers.

A systematic review of the factors influencing African Americans' participation in cancer clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review was conducted to synthesize the existing evidence regarding key considerations influencing African Americans' participation in cancer clinical trials (CCTs).

METHODS

The PubMed and PsycINFO databases were searched to identify peer-reviewed publications during the last decade (2002-2011) that met our inclusionary criteria. Our search utilized Boolean combinations of the following terms: "clinical trial"; "cancer"; "neoplasm"; "African American"; "Black"; "caregiver"; "decision making"; "recruitment"; "companion"; "family"; "significant other"; and "social support".

RESULTS

A total of 267 articles were identified in the database searches. Of these articles, a total of 31 were determined to meet the inclusion criteria and were retained for review. Key issues that emerged as impediments to a successful recruitment of African Americans to CCTs included negative attitudes towards clinical trials, low levels of knowledge and awareness regarding CCTs, religious beliefs, and structural barriers, such as transportation, childcare, and access to health care. Recommendations from physicians, family members, and friends may promote CCT participation. Multimedia, and culturally-appropriate recruitment approaches may also be effective in soliciting participation among African Americans.

CONCLUSION

Existing research underscores the importance of social support from family and friends, cultural appropriateness and sensitivity from physicians and in the design of the CCT, and enhanced education among African Americans in decision-making processes. As African Americans are underrepresented in CCTs, targeted strategies to enhance recruitment efforts and improve cancer treatment outcomes are essential.

Willingness to participate in clinical trials among patients of Chinese heritage: a meta-synthesis

BACKGROUND

Subjects of Chinese heritage have been found to participate in clinical research at lower rates than other groups despite growing in numbers as a population. While much research has examined research participants' motivation, there has not been a comprehensive synthesis of this information with respect to participants of Chinese descent. We sought to identify the factors that promote and hinder participation in clinical research among participants of Chinese heritage.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature in Pubmed, OpenJGATE, SCIRUS, and COCHRANE databases and performed a meta-synthesis of retrieved articles. We extracted qualitative data, such as quotes to identify emerging themes. We identified five studies that met our selection criteria. Of them, only one (1/5) was conducted in China while other studies involved Chinese emigrants in USA (3/5) and Singapore (1/5). Participants from China were similar to emigrants with regard to factors that either promoted or decreased research participation. Four studies reported data exclusively on Chinese subjects. Three of the five studies involved qualitative interviews while the others were conducted using a survey design. Six themes favoring research participation were identified: Personal Benefit to Participants, Financial Incentives, Participant Sense of Altruism, Family or Physician Recommendations, Advertisements, and Convenience to the Participant. Five factors were seen as a barrier to participation in clinical trials: Mistrust of Researchers, Language Barrier, Lack of Financial and Other Support, Cultural and Social Barriers, Lack of Knowledge about Clinical Trials.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

Chinese heritage clinical research participants value personal benefit, financial incentives, the ability to help others, recommendations of others, advertisements, and convenience when considering clinical research participation. In addition, the establishment of trust and addressing knowledge deficits are important factors to them. Investigators seeking to optimize enrolment in these populations should incorporate these findings into their study design and subject handouts.

Obstacles to participation in randomised cancer clinical trials: a systematic review of the literature

Accrual to clinical trials continues to be a problem in many countries including Australia despite its fundamental importance to the progress of evidence-based medicine. This paper reviews the current literature addressing the obstacles to accrual excluding those related to protocol design. An electronic search of the literature identified publications in oncology specifically addressing the obstacles to participation in clinical trials. This search was supplemented by searches of key oncology journals. Obstacles fall into three main categories - clinician, patient and system; however, there are overlaps between categories. Clinician behaviour is the most important of these. Exclusion of patients for reasons other than defined eligibility criteria, concerns about increased time requirements, and suboptimal communication with patients all affect accrual. Risk management strategies for clinical trials need to be individualised to address the obstacles most likely to negatively impact on accrual. Communication between clinician and patient appears to be a greater issue than previously recognised. Time concerns need to be addressed as generational change affects the expectations of the medical workforce.

What leads Indians to participate in clinical trials? A meta-analysis of qualitative studies

Background

With the globalization of clinical trials, large developing nations have substantially increased their participation in multi-site studies. This participation has raised ethical concerns, among them the fear that local customs, habits and culture are not respected while asking potential participants to take part in study. This knowledge gap is particularly noticeable among Indian subjects, since despite the large number of participants, little is known regarding what factors affect their willingness to participate in clinical trials.

Methods

We conducted a meta-analysis of all studies evaluating the factors and barriers, from the perspective of potential Indian participants, contributing to their participation in clinical trials. We searched both international as well as Indian-specific bibliographic databases, including Pubmed, Cochrane, Openjgate, MedInd, Scirus and Medknow, also performing hand searches and communicating with authors to obtain additional references. We enrolled studies dealing exclusively with the participation of Indians in clinical trials. Data extraction was conducted by three researchers, with disagreement being resolved by consensus.

Results

Six qualitative studies and one survey were found evaluating the main themes affecting the participation of Indian subjects. Themes included Personal health benefits, Altruism, Trust in physicians, Source of extra income, Detailed knowledge, Methods for motivating participants as factors favoring, while Mistrust on trial organizations, Concerns about efficacy and safety of trials, Psychological reasons, Trial burden, Loss of confidentiality, Dependency issues, Language as the barriers.

Conclusion

We identified factors that facilitated and barriers that have negative implications on trial participation decisions in Indian subjects. Due consideration and weightage should be assigned to these factors while planning future trials in India.

Recruitment of African Americans to National Oncology Clinical Trials through a clinical trial shared resource

In 2000, using National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute (NIH/NCI) U54 funds, a clinical trials shared resource was established at Nashville General Hospital at Meharry to attract more African Americans to national cancer clinical trials. This Report from the Field describes the model used to achieve this end.

Involving American Indians and medically underserved rural populations in cancer clinical trials

PURPOSE

To assess cancer clinical trial recruitment and reasons for nonaccrual among a rural, medically underserved population served by a community-based cancer care center.

METHODS

We prospectively tracked clinical trial enrollment incidence among all new patients presenting at the Rapid City Regional Cancer Care Institute. Evaluating physicians completed questionnaires for each patient regarding clinical trial enrollment status and primary reasons for nonenrollment. Patients who identified as American Indian were referred to a program where patients were assisted in navigating the medical system by trained, culturally competent staff.

RESULTS

Between September 2006 and January 2008, 891 new cancer patients were evaluated. Seventy-eight patients (9%; 95% confidence intervals, 7-11%) were enrolled on a clinical treatment trial. For 73% (95% confidence intervals, 69-75%) of patients (646 of 891) lack of relevant protocol availability or protocol inclusion criteria restrictiveness was the reason for nonenrollment. Only 45 (5%; 95% confidence intervals, 4-7%) patients refused enrollment on a trial. Of the 78 enrolled on a trial, 6 (8%; 95% confidence intervals, 3-16%) were American Indian. Three additional American Indian patients were enrolled under a nontreatment cancer control trial, bringing the total percentage enrolled of the 94 American Indians who presented to the clinic to 10% (95% confidence intervals, 5-17%).

LIMITATIONS

Eligibility rates were unable to be calculated and cross validation of the number in the cohort via registries or ICD-9 codes was not performed.

CONCLUSION

Clinical trial participation in this medically underserved population was low overall, but approximately 3-fold higher than reported national accrual rates. Lack of availability of protocols for common cancer sites as well as stringent protocol inclusion criteria were the primary obstacles to clinical trial enrollment. Targeted interventions using a Patient Navigation program were used to engage AI patients and may have resulted in higher clinical trial enrollment among this racial/ethnic group.

Patients' attitudes and preferences about participation and recruitment strategies in clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess attitudes of patients about participation in clinical trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a self-report survey of 400 patients who underwent general medical evaluations between September and November 2006 at a tertiary care academic medical center in Rochester, MN. We measured knowledge of access to clinical trials, attitudes toward participation, recruitment preferences, and beliefs about research integrity.

RESULTS

Of 485 consecutive patients, 400 (82%) completed the survey. Previous participation in clinical trials was reported by 112 patients (28%). Most were unaware of online information about clinical trials (330 [82%]), were satisfied with their current knowledge (233 [58%]), expected their treating physician to inform them about current trials (304 [76%]), and showed equal interest in participating in conventional or complementary intervention trials (174 [44%]). Of the 400 respondents, 321 (80%) found it appropriate to be contacted by mail and 253 (63%) by telephone regarding study participation. Most patients (364 [91%]) wanted to be informed about research findings or else would not participate in future clinical trials (272 [68%]). The most frequently expected compensation was free parking (234 [58%]). Most thought that their safety (373 [93%]) and privacy (376 [94%]) would be guarded.

CONCLUSION

Patients are interested in participating in clinical trials but commonly lack adequate information. If patients received more information (through their treating physicians), enrollment might improve. This single-site study has limited generalizability. Future studies involving a diverse group of patients from a broader geographic distribution will help provide more definitive results.

Patients' attitudes and preferences about participation and recruitment strategies in clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess attitudes of patients about participation in clinical trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a self-report survey of 400 patients who underwent general medical evaluations between September and November 2006 at a tertiary care academic medical center in Rochester, MN. We measured knowledge of access to clinical trials, attitudes toward participation, recruitment preferences, and beliefs about research integrity.

RESULTS

Of 485 consecutive patients, 400 (82%) completed the survey. Previous participation in clinical trials was reported by 112 patients (28%). Most were unaware of online information about clinical trials (330 [82%]), were satisfied with their current knowledge (233 [58%]), expected their treating physician to inform them about current trials (304 [76%]), and showed equal interest in participating in conventional or complementary intervention trials (174 [44%]). Of the 400 respondents, 321 (80%) found it appropriate to be contacted by mail and 253 (63%) by telephone regarding study participation. Most patients (364 [91%]) wanted to be informed about research findings or else would not participate in future clinical trials (272 [68%]). The most frequently expected compensation was free parking (234 [58%]). Most thought that their safety (373 [93%]) and privacy (376 [94%]) would be guarded.

CONCLUSION

Patients are interested in participating in clinical trials but commonly lack adequate information. If patients received more information (through their treating physicians), enrollment might improve. This single-site study has limited generalizability. Future studies involving a diverse group of patients from a broader geographic distribution will help provide more definitive results.