Assessment of perceived cost to the patient and other barriers to clinical trial participation

COVID-19 clinical trial participation and awareness in Texas

The COVID-19 pandemic required the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, necessitating quick yet representative clinical trial enrollment to evaluate these preventive measures. However, misinformation around the COVID-19 pandemic and general concerns about clinical trial participation in the U.S. hindered clinical trial enrollment. This study assessed awareness of, willingness to participate in, and enrollment in COVID-19 vaccine and treatment clinical trials in Texas. A quota sample of 1,089 Texas residents was collected online from June - July 2022. Respondents were asked if they were aware of, willing to participate in, and had enrolled in clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines or treatments. Overall, 45.8% of respondents reported being aware of clinical trials for COVID-19 treatments or vaccines, but only 21.7% knew how to enroll and only 13.2% had enrolled in a COVID-19 clinical trial. Respondents with bachelor's or graduate degrees were more likely to be aware of clinical trials, more likely to have enrolled in trials, and more willing to participate in treatment trials. Women were less willing to participate and less likely to have enrolled in COVID-19 clinical trials than men. Respondents aged 55 years and older were more willing to participate, but less likely to have enrolled in COVID-19 clinical trials than 18-to-24-year-olds. Common reasons given for not participating in clinical trials included concerns that COVID-19 treatments may not be safe, government distrust, and uncertainty about what clinical trial participation would entail. Substantial progress is needed to build community awareness and increase enrollment in clinical trials.

Association Between State Medicaid Policies and Accrual of Black or Hispanic Patients to Cancer Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

It is unknown whether Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or state-level policies mandating Medicaid coverage of the routine costs of clinical trial participation have ameliorated longstanding racial and ethnic disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional difference-in-differences analysis examining the effect of Medicaid expansion on rates of enrollment for Black or Hispanic nonelderly adults in nonobservational, US cancer clinical trials using data from Medidata's Rave platform for 2012-2019. We examined heterogeneity in this effect on the basis of whether states had pre-existing mandates requiring Medicaid coverage of the routine costs of clinical trial participation.

RESULTS

The study included 47,870 participants across 1,353 clinical trials and 344 clinical trial sites. In expansion states, the proportion of participants who were Black or Hispanic increased from 16.7% before expansion to 17.2% after Medicaid expansion (0.5 percentage point [PP] change [95% CI, -1.1 to 2.0]). In nonexpansion states, this proportion increased from 19.8% before 2014 (when the first states expanded eligibility under the ACA) to 20.4% after 2014 (0.6 PP change [95% CI, -2.3 to 3.5]). These trends yielded a nonsignificant difference-in-differences estimate of 0.9 PP (95% CI, -2.6 to 4.4). Medicaid expansion was associated with a 5.3 PP (95% CI, 1.9 to 8.7) increase in the enrollment of Black or Hispanic participants in states with mandates requiring Medicaid coverage of the routine costs of trial participation, but not in states without mandates (-0.3 PP [95% CI, -4.5 to 3.9]).

CONCLUSION

Medicaid expansion was not associated with a significant increase in the proportion of Black or Hispanic oncology trial participants overall, but was associated with an increase specifically in states that mandated Medicaid coverage of the routine costs of trial participation.

Community Engagement Strategies for Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Populations

The representation of racial and ethnic minority populations in clinical trials continues to be a challenge despite mandates, good intentions, and concerted efforts by funding agencies, regulatory bodies, and researchers to close the clinical trials gap. A lack of diversity in research results in both continued disparities and poorer health outcomes. It is thus imperative that investigators understand and effectively address the challenges of clinical trials participation by underrepresented populations. In this paper, we expound on best practices for participatory research by clearly defining the community, highlighting the importance of proper identification and engagement of strong community partners, and exploring patient- and provider-level barriers and facilitators that require consideration. A clearer understanding of the balance of power between researchers and community partners is needed for any approach that addresses clinical trials representation. Unintended biases in study design and methods may continue to prevent racial and ethnic minority participants from taking part, and significant organizational changes are necessary for efficient and transparent relationships. Comprehensive community engagement in research includes dissemination of clinical trial results within and in partnership with community partners. Through careful deliberation and honest reflection, investigators, institutions, and community partners can develop the tailored blueprints of research collaborations essential for true equity in clinical trials.

The influence of political ideology on clinical trial knowledge, invitation, and participation among adults in the United States

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials remain a critical component of medical innovation. Evidence suggests that individuals' political ideologies may impact their health behaviors. However, there is a paucity of literature examining the relationship between political ideologies and clinical trial knowledge and participation.

METHODS

Study data were derived from Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 4 (n = 3300), which was conducted from February to June 2020. We used participants' characteristics to estimate the prevalence of clinical trial knowledge and participation. We used multivariable logistic regressions to investigate whether political ideology had a significant impact on clinical trial knowledge and participation. Jack-knife replicate weights were applied for population-level estimates.

RESULTS

Most participants were White (64.2%), earned above US$50,000 (62.4%), and lived in urban areas (88.0%). About 59.2% reported having some knowledge of clinical trials, and only 8.9% had ever been invited to participate in clinical trials. A total of 37.0%, 29.5%, and 33.5% of the population endorsed moderate, liberal, and conservative political viewpoints respectively. In the adjusted logistic regression analysis, compared to conservatives, liberals (adjusted odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.80) and moderates (adjusted odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.88) had significantly greater odds of having knowledge of clinical trials. Also, liberals had higher odds of receiving invitations to participate in clinical trials (odds ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.85; p = 0.023) and greater odds of trial participation (odds ratio, 3.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-10.33; p = 0.007) compared to moderates.

CONCLUSIONS

The mechanism underlying the higher rates of clinical trial invitations to liberals is unclear and requires further comprehensive investigation. Similarly, further qualitative studies are needed to understand the attributes that promote knowledge and increased likelihood of clinical trial participation among liberals. This will provide crucial insight to help design interventions that further involve conservatives and moderates in clinical trials and scientific enterprise.

Represent: A community engagement roadmap to improve participant representation in cancer early detection research: An Oregon case study

Introduction

While authentic and sustained community involvement in the research process is critically important to making new technologies and interventions effective and socially acceptable, there is uneven participation across sociodemographic, racial, and ethnic communities in many research areas, including cancer early detection research. Currently, 18% of cancer in the United States impacts Hispanics and Latinos, this population accounts for < 10% of research participants. Understanding barriers and facilitators to cancer early detection research is imperative to the ultimate success of this research. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to: understand Hispanic and Latino community perspectives in participation in cancer early detection research; and identify sustainable and mutually beneficial approaches to community engagement and involvement.

Methods

The Oregon Case Study, led by Oregon Health & Science University's Community Outreach, Research and Engagement (CORE) in partnership with colleagues at Vocal, a partnership between Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Manchester and Cambridge University, adopted a participatory research approach to better understand participation in cancer early detection research from the perspectives of Oregon's Hispanic and Latino community members. We implemented two evidence-based community engagement models, the Community Engagement Studio and the Community Readiness Assessment Model. Using a facilitated format prescribed by each community engagement model, community members helped us to answer two research questions: (1) What methods help us increase participation of underrepresented communities in cancer early detection research?; and (2) How can we build trust between researchers and underrepresented communities within cancer early detection research? Quantitative (i.e., descriptive statistic) and qualitative (i.e., thematic analysis) analytic methods were used to measure and assess community knowledge, leadership, beliefs, and resources regarding participation in cancer early detection research.

Results

A total of 36 Hispanic and Latino community members participated in the two community engagement models. We identified three emergent themes pertaining to participation in cancer early detection research that include: low-level awareness of cancer early detection research and opportunities for research participation, structural barriers to research participation, and uncertainty of the benefits of research participation.

Conclusion

Our approach, using two evidence-based community engagement models, yielded valuable insights about perceptions of research participation for Hispanic and Latino community members. These findings, synthesized into three key themes, led to actionable recommendations to increase research participation.

Patient Experience in Clinical Trials: Quality of Life, Financial Burden, and Perception of Care in Patients With Multiple Myeloma or Lymphoma Enrolled on Clinical Trials Compared With Standard Care

PURPOSE

Patients' concerns regarding clinical trial (CT) participation include apprehension about side effects, quality of life (QoL), financial burden, and quality of care.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the experience of patients with multiple myeloma or lymphoma who were treated on CTs (CT group, n = 35) versus patients treated with standard approaches (non-CT group, n = 88) focusing on QoL, financial burden of care, and patients' perception of quality of care over a 1-year period.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in any of the patient-reported outcomes in CT versus non-CT groups. We observed an initial decline in overall QoL in the first 3 months across both groups, driven primarily by physical and functional well-being. QoL gradually improved and was above baseline by month 12. Patients reported highest improvement in the functional well-being subdomain. Patients in both groups reported high satisfaction with the quality of care received, and there were no differences in overall satisfaction, communication with team, or access to care. At baseline, 16%-19% of patients reported financial burden, which increased to a peak of 33% in the CT group and to 49% in the non-CT group over the course of 1 year. There was no significant difference in financial burden in the two groups overall. Most of the patients reported getting all the care that was deemed medically necessary in both groups. However, a significant proportion of patients reported having to make other kinds of financial sacrifices because of their cancer (CT group: 33% of patients at baseline and 21%-40% over 1 year; non-CT group: 19% at baseline and 25%-36% over 1 year).

CONCLUSION

Patients treated on CTs reported comparable QoL and quality of care with the non-CT group. A high proportion of patients reported financial burden over time in both groups. Our findings can serve as a guide to educate patients regarding CT participation and highlight the need to address the significant financial burden experienced by patients with cancer.

Disparities in Clinical Care and Research in Renal Cell Carcinoma

Disparities in cancer screening, prevention, therapy, clinical outcomes, and research are increasingly recognized and pervade all malignancies. In response, several cancer research and clinical care organizations have issued policy statements to acknowledge and address barriers to achieving health equity in cancer care. The increasingly specialized nature of oncology warrants a disease-focused appraisal of existing disparities and potential solutions. Although clear improvements in clinical outcomes have been recently observed for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), these improvements have not been equally shared across diverse populations. This review describes existing RCC cancer disparities and their potential contributing factors and discusses opportunities to improve health equity in clinical research for all patients with RCC.

The DISCO App: A pilot test of a multi-level intervention to reduce the financial burden of cancer through improved cost communication☆

Objective

Financial toxicity affects 30–50% of people with cancer in the US. Although experts recommend patients and physicians discuss treatment cost, cost discussions occur infrequently. We pilot-tested the feasibility, acceptability and influence on outcomes of the DIScussions of COst (DISCO) App, a multi-level communication intervention designed to improve cost discussions and related outcomes.

Methods

While waiting to see their physician, patients (n = 32) used the DISCO App on a tablet. Physicians were given a cost discussion tip sheet. Clinic visits were video recorded and patients completed pre- and post-intervention measures of self-efficacy for managing costs, self-efficacy for interacting with physicians, cost-related distress, and perceptions of the DISCO App. Coders observed the recordings to determine the presence of cost discussions, initiators, and topics.

Results

Most patients reported needing ≤15 min to use the DISCO App, and that it made it easier to ask cost-related questions. Findings showed increased self-efficacy for managing treatment costs (p = .02) and for interacting with physicians (p = .001). All visits included a cost discussion.

Conclusions

Prompting patients to discuss costs may improve cost treatment discussions and related outcomes.

Innovation

An app-based and tailorable treatment-cost communication intervention is feasible, acceptable, and demonstrates promise in prompting cost discussions and improving outcomes.

Trial registration: Clinical Trials.gov registration number: NCT03676920 (September 19, 2018).

DISCO App: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a patient intervention to reduce the financial burden of cancer in a diverse patient population

Background

Financial toxicity, the material and psychological burden of the cost of treatment, affects 30–50% of people with cancer, even those with health insurance. The burden of treatment cost can affect treatment adherence and, ultimately, mortality. Financial toxicity is a health equity issue, disproportionately affecting patients who are racial/ethnic minorities, have lower incomes, and are < 65 years old. Patient education about treatment cost and patient-oncologist cost discussions are recommended as ways to address financial toxicity; however, research shows cost discussions occur infrequently (Altice et al. J Natl Cancer Inst 109:djw205, 2017; Schnipper et al. J Clin Oncol 34:2925-34, 2016; Zafar et al. Oncologist 18:381-90, 2013; American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network 2010). Our overall goal is to address the burden of financial toxicity and work toward health equity through a tailorable education and communication intervention, the DISCO App. The aim of this longitudinal randomized controlled trial is to test the effectiveness of the DISCO App on the outcomes in a population of economically and racially/ethnically diverse cancer patients from all age groups.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer at a NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center in Detroit, MI, will be randomized to one of three study arms: one usual care arm (arm 1) and two intervention arms (arms 2 and 3). All intervention patients (arms 2 and 3) will receive the DISCO App before the second interaction with their oncologist, and patients in arm 3 will receive an intervention booster. The DISCO App, presented on an iPad, includes an educational video about treatment costs, ways to manage them, and the importance of discussing them with oncologists. Patients enter socio-demographic information (e.g., employment, insurance status) and indicate their financial concerns. They then receive a tailored list of questions to consider asking their oncologist. All patients will have up to two interactions with their oncologist video recorded and complete measures at baseline, after the recorded interactions and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the second interaction. Outcome measures will assess discussions of cost, communication quality, knowledge of treatment costs, self-efficacy for treatment cost management, referrals for support, short- and longer-term financial toxicity, and treatment adherence.

Discussion

If effective, this intervention will improve awareness of and discussions of treatment cost and alleviate the burden of financial toxicity. It may be especially helpful to groups disproportionately affected by financial toxicity, helping to achieve health equity.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04766190. Registered on February 23, 2021

A Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) study of medication and CBT sequencing in the treatment of pediatric anxiety disorders

BACKGROUND

Treatment of a child who has an anxiety disorder usually begins with the question of which treatment to start first, medication or psychotherapy. Both have strong empirical support, but few studies have compared their effectiveness head-to-head, and none has investigated what to do if the treatment tried first isn't working well-whether to optimize the treatment already begun or to add the other treatment.

METHODS

This is a single-blind Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) of 24 weeks duration with two levels of randomization, one in each of two 12-week stages. In Stage 1, children will be randomized to fluoxetine or Coping Cat Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). In Stage 2, remitters will continue maintenance-level therapy with the single-modality treatment received in Stage 1. Non-remitters during the first 12 weeks of treatment will be randomized to either [1] optimization of their Stage 1 treatment, or [2] optimization of Stage 1 treatment and addition of the other intervention. After the 24-week trial, we will follow participants during open, naturalistic treatment to assess the durability of study treatment effects. Patients, 8-17 years of age who are diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, will be recruited and treated within 9 large clinical sites throughout greater Los Angeles. They will be predominantly underserved, ethnic minorities. The primary outcome measure will be the self-report score on the 41-item youth SCARED (Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders). An intent-to-treat analysis will compare youth randomized to fluoxetine first versus those randomized to CBT first ("Main Effect 1"). Then, among Stage 1 non-remitters, we will compare non-remitters randomized to optimization of their Stage 1 monotherapy versus non-remitters randomized to combination treatment ("Main Effect 2"). The interaction of these main effects will assess whether one of the 4 treatment sequences (CBT➔CBT; CBT➔med; med➔med; med➔CBT) in non-remitters is significantly better or worse than predicted from main effects alone.

DISCUSSION

Findings from this SMART study will identify treatment sequences that optimize outcomes in ethnically diverse pediatric patients from underserved low- and middle-income households who have anxiety disorders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This protocol, version 1.0, was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on February 17, 2021 with Identifier: NCT04760275 .

Use of a clinical trial screening tool to enhance patient accrual

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial patient accrual continues to be challenging despite the identification of multiple physician, patient, and system barriers. Expanded collection of demographic data, including socioeconomic status (employment, income, education) and comorbidities, can enhance our understanding of the identified barriers, inform the development of interventions to overcome these barriers, and recognize their impact on treatment outcomes. A clinical trials screening tool was developed to collect expanded demographic data and barriers to trial enrollment; it has been implemented in the National Cancer Institute Clinical Oncology Research Program. The purpose of this article is to describe the development and implementation of the tool and to share information obtained during the first 43 months of its use.

METHODS

There were 19,373 entries collected; 74% of those screened enrolled in a clinical trial. Demographic characteristics were compared between those screened and those enrolled. They varied significantly between the groups.

RESULTS

Reasons for nonenrollment included ineligibility (50%), eligible but declined (47%), eligible but physician declined to offer participation (2%), and eligible but the study was suspended (1%). The most common reasons for ineligibility were failure to meet the protocol-specific stage of cancer, the presence of comorbidities, and the symptom-eligibility score was not met. The most common reason for eligible patients declining participation was that they had no desire to participate in research.

CONCLUSIONS

The tool provides valuable information about the characteristics of individuals who are screened and enrolled in National Cancer Institute-sponsored trials, as well as about barriers to enrollment in trials. The data also inform protocol development and interventions at the patient, provider, and institutional level.

Understanding and Attitudes toward Cancer Clinical Trials among Patients with a Cancer Diagnosis: National Study through Cancer Trials Ireland

Cancer clinical trials (CCTs) are critical to translation and development of better therapies to improve outcomes. CCTs require adequate patient involvement but accrual rates are low globally. Several known barriers impede participation and knowing how subpopulations differ in understanding of CCTs can foster targeted approaches to aid accrual and advance cancer treatments. We conducted the first nationwide survey of 1089 patients attending 14 Irish cancer centres, assessing understanding of fundamental concepts in CCT methodology and factors that influence participation, to help tailor patient support for accrual to CCTs. Two-thirds (66%) of patients reported never having been offered a CCT and only 5% of those not offered asked to participate. Misunderstanding of clinical equipoise was prevalent. There were differences in understanding of randomisation of treatment by age (p < 0.0001), ethnicity (p = 0.035) and marital status (p = 0.013), and 58% of patients and 61% previous CCT participants thought that their doctor would ensure better treatment in CCTs. Females were slightly more risk averse. Males indicated a greater willingness to participate in novel drug trials (p = 0.001, p = 0.003). The study identified disparities in several demographics; older, widowed, living in provincial small towns and fewer years-educated patients had generally poorer understanding of CCTs, highlighting requirements for targeted support in these groups.

YouTube Videos as a Source of Information About Clinical Trials: Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are essential to the advancement of cancer treatment but fewer than 5% of adult cancer patients enroll in a trial. A commonly cited barrier to participation is the lack of understanding about clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

Since the internet is a popular source of health-related information and YouTube is the second most visited website in the world, we examined the content of the top 115 YouTube videos about clinical trials to evaluate clinical trial information available through this medium.

METHODS

YouTube videos posted prior to March 2017 were searched using selected keywords. A snowballing technique was used to identify videos wherein sequential screening of the autofill search results for each set of keywords was conducted. Video characteristics (eg, number of views and video length) were recorded. The content was broadly grouped as related to purpose, phases, design, safety and ethics, and participant considerations. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess associations between video type (cancer vs noncancer) and video characteristics and content.

RESULTS

In total, 115 videos were reviewed. Of these, 46/115 (40.0%) were cancer clinical trials videos and 69/115 (60.0%) were noncancer/general clinical trial videos. Most videos were created by health care organizations/cancer centers (34/115, 29.6%), were oriented toward patients (67/115, 58.3%) and the general public (68/115, 59.1%), and were informational (79/115, 68.7%); altruism was a common theme (31/115, 27.0%). Compared with noncancer videos, cancer clinical trials videos more frequently used an affective communication style and mentioned the benefits of participation. Cancer clinical trial videos were also much more likely to raise the issue of costs associated with participation (odds ratio [OR] 5.93, 95% CI 1.15-29.46) and advise patients to communicate with their physician about cancer clinical trials (OR 4.94, 95% CI 1.39-17.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, YouTube clinical trial videos provided information on many aspects of trials; however, individual videos tended to focus on selected topics with varying levels of detail. Cancer clinical trial videos were more emotional in style and positive in tone and provided information on the important topics of cost and communication. Patients are encouraged to verify and supplement YouTube video information in consultations with their health care professionals to obtain a full and accurate picture of cancer clinical trials to make an adequately informed decision about participation.

Communicating Effectively About Clinical Trials With African American Communities: A Comparison of African American and White Information Sources and Needs

Clinical trial (CT) participation is low among African Americans (AAs). To better communicate with AAs about the importance of CTs, the purpose of this study was to explore the communication sources and perceived effective communication channels and strategies through which the general public, AAs, and White individuals receive CT information. A quantitative telephone survey was conducted with AAs and Whites in one Southern state (N = 511). The measures assessed CT sources of information, perceived effectiveness of communication channels and strategies, CT understanding, and CT participation. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were used to compare responses overall and by race. AAs reported being exposed to more CT information than Whites. AAs received CT information most often through television, social media, and doctors compared to Whites. Perceived effectiveness of communication strategies and channels varied by race. AAs preferred simple and easy-to-understand CT information distributed through faith-based organizations. Whites preferred to receive CT information through a trustworthy source (e.g., doctor). There were no significant differences between AAs and Whites in their perceived effectiveness of media sources (e.g., Internet). Recommendations are provided to help health promotion practitioners and CT recruiters tailor information and communicate it effectively to potential AA and White CT participants.

Clinical trial insurance coverage for cancer patients under the Affordable Care Act

Background

Participation in cancer clinical trials has been shown to increase overall survival with minimal increase in cost, but enrollment in adult cancer clinical trials remains low. One factor limiting enrollment is lack of insurance coverage, but this barrier should be reduced under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which includes a provision requiring coverage for clinical trial participation as of 2014.

Methods

To assess the number of Kansas adults aged 19-64, newly covered with health insurance for participation in oncology clinical trials as a result of the ACA, a cross sectional design using extracted data from the 2012 American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample to estimate the number of individuals covered by insurance and data from the 2014 Department of Health and Human Services Health Insurance Marketplace enrollment to estimate those newly enrolled through ACA.

Results

In 2014, there was an estimated increase of 3% (54,397; 95% CI: 44,149-64,244) for a total of 72% (1,171,041) of Kansans aged 19 to 64 with health insurance coverage for clinical trial participation.

Conclusion

Three main factors limit the effectiveness of the ACA provisions in expanding clinical trial coverage: 1) 'grandfathered' self-funded employer plans not subject to state Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regulations, 2) Medicaid coverage limits not addressed under the ACA, 3) populations that remain uninsured. Kansas saw a negligible increase in insurance coverage as a result of the ACA thus lack of insurance coverage is likely to remain a concern for cancer patients.

Factors influencing inclusion in digestive cancer clinical trials: A population-based study

BACKGROUND

Inclusion in a randomized therapeutic trial represents an optimal therapeutic strategy.

AIMS

To determine the influence of demographic characteristics and deprivation on the enrolment of patients in digestive cancer clinical trials.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2010, 4632 patients were recorded by the Burgundy Digestive Cancer Registry. According to a balancing score, the 136 patients included in a clinical trial were matched with 272 patients who met the eligibility criteria for trials. Deprivation was measured by the ecological European deprivation index. A conditional multivariate logistic regression was performed.

RESULTS

Patients aged over 75 years were significantly less likely to be included in clinical trials than younger patients (odds ratio 0.33; [0.13-0.87]). Patients treated in private institutions were also less likely to be enrolled than those treated in public institutions (odds ratio 0.04; [0.01-0.16]; p<0.001). A relationship between type of institution and the European deprivation index was observed (p=0.017). Deprived patients were less likely to be included in clinical trials when they were managed in private institutions (odds ratio 0.706; [0.524-0.952]; p=0.022). The European deprivation index had no impact when patients were managed in other institutions.

CONCLUSION

The relationship between type of institution and deprivation underlines the necessity for improving patients' chance of being recruited in digestive cancer clinical trials.

Cancer patient decision making related to clinical trial participation: an integrative review with implications for patients' relational autonomy

PURPOSE

Oncology clinical trials are necessary for the improvement of patient care as they have the ability to confirm the efficacy and safety of novel cancer treatments and in so doing, contribute to a solid evidence base on which practitioners and patients can make informed treatment decisions. However, only 3-5 % of adult cancer patients enroll in clinical trials. Lack of participation compromises the success of clinical trials and squanders an opportunity for improving patient outcomes. This literature review summarizes the factors and contexts that influence cancer patient decision making related to clinical trial participation.

METHODS

An integrative review was undertaken within PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases for articles written between 1995 and 2012 and archived under relevant keywords. Articles selected were data-based, written in English, and limited to adult cancer patients.

RESULTS

In the 51 articles reviewed, three main types of factors were identified that influence cancer patients' decision making about participation in clinical trials: personal, social, and system factors. Subthemes included patients' trust in their physician and the research process, undue influence within the patient-physician relationship, and systemic social inequalities. How these factors interact and influence patients' decision-making process and relational autonomy, however, is insufficiently understood.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research is needed to further elucidate the sociopolitical barriers and facilitators of clinical trial participation and to enhance ethical practice within clinical trial enrolment. This research will inform targeted education and support interventions to foster patients' relational autonomy in the decision-making process and potentially improve clinical trial participation rates.

Using registries to recruit subjects for clinical trials

AIM

We studied the use of patient/disease registries to recruit potential subjects for prospective clinical trials - describing the number, types and major benefits of using this approach.

METHODS

In December 2013, we conducted a focused database search in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science for studies (English language only) that used registries to recruit subjects for clinical trials published in 2004-2013. Of the 233 unique citations identified, 21 used registries to recruit subjects - 10 papers and 11 abstracts. Pearling and search for subsequent full papers of the abstracts identified 4 more papers.

RESULTS

Our analysis, based on these 25 citations, showed that 14 are related to cancer, 3 to diabetes mellitus, 1 each to stroke, asthma, and celiac disease and 5 are disease neutral. Many types of registries (population-based cancer, quality improvement, disease-specific, web-based disease-neutral registries, local general practice registers, and national health database) are used to recruit subjects for clinical trials and uncover new knowledge. Overall, 16 registries are in the US, 4 in UK, 1 each in Canada, Spain, and Australia and 1 involved in many countries. Registries can identify very large number of subjects for screening for eligibility for clinical trials, especially in very large trials, rare disease trials, and trials involving minority patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Registries can retrospectively identify very large numbers of potential subjects for screening for eligibility and enrollment in prospective clinical trials. This matching can lead to more timely recruitment and help solve a major problem in conducting clinical trials.

Promoting clinical research to medically underserved communities: current practices and perceptions about clinical trial recruiting strategies

INTRODUCTION

Although clinical trials have the potential to provide the most advanced medical treatments and screening options, accrual rates remain low among medically underserved populations. Strategies to enhance clinical trial recruitment are frequently undertaken without developing, implementing, and evaluating communication and educational activities. This study assesses the current clinical trial recruiting efforts taking place at academic medical centers in a southeastern state and explores principal investigators' attitudes and beliefs about how to successfully recruit for clinical trials, in the general population, and in African American and rural communities.

METHODS

An online survey was used to collect responses from clinical trial principal investigators working in a southeastern state's five main academic medical centers. Respondents were asked about their experience with recruitment and recruiting strategies, in general, and in the African American and rural communities.

RESULTS

Respondents said that it was most difficult to find rural residents to participate in clinical trials (M=3.60, SD=.93), followed by the general public (M=3.30, SD=.99) and African American residents (M=3.15, SD=.99). Investigators most often reported personally recruiting their patients (M=3.50, SD=1.34) and through local doctors (M=2.80, SD=1.20). Principal investigators rarely recruit through faith-based organizations (M=1.74, SD=1.05), or by using radio (M=1.62, SD=.90), or television ads (M=1.42, SD=.75).

CONCLUSION

Clinical trial investigators rarely communicate about clinical research outside of the medical setting or partner with community organizations or local doctors to reach individuals in medically underserved communities. Study implications describe the importance of educating research teams about how best to promote clinical trial awareness and knowledge.

Barriers to medical research participation as perceived by clinical trial investigators: communicating with rural and african american communities

Clinical trials help advance public health and medical research on prevention, diagnosis, screening, treatment, and quality of life. Despite the need for access to quality care in medically underserved areas, clinical trial participation remains low among individuals in rural and African American communities. This study assessed clinical trial research in South Carolina's five main academic medical centers, focusing specifically on clinical trial investigators' perceived barriers to recruitment in the general population and in rural and African American communities. Online survey responses (N = 119) revealed that it was most difficult for investigators to recruit from rural areas and that rural residents were least likely to be represented in medical research, behind both the general public and African Americans. Barriers focusing on communication or awareness proved to be the biggest hurdles to finding potential participants in both the general public and rural communities. Psychological barriers to recruitment were perceived to be most prevalent in African American communities. Study findings provide important insights from the perspective of the clinical trial investigator that will aid in the development of effective communication and education strategies for reaching rural and African American residents with information about clinical trials.

Use of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program screening and accrual log to address cancer clinical trial accrual

PURPOSE

Screening logs have the potential to help oncology clinical trial programs at the site level, as well as trial leaders, address enrollment in real time. Such an approach could be especially helpful in improving representation of racial/ethnic minority and other underrepresented populations in clinical trials.

METHODS

The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) developed a screening log. Log data collected from March 2009 through May 2012 were analyzed for number of patients screened versus enrolled, including for demographic subgroups; screening methods; and enrollment barriers, including reasons for ineligibility and provider and patient reasons for declining to offer or participate in a trial. User feedback was obtained to better understand perceptions of log utility.

RESULTS

Of 4,483 patients screened, 18.4% enrolled onto NCCCP log trials. Reasons for nonenrollment were ineligibility (51.6%), patient declined (25.8%), physician declined (15.6%), urgent need for treatment (6.6%), and trial suspension (0.4%). Major reasons for patients declining were no desire to participate in trials (43.2%) and preference for standard of care (39%). Major reasons for physicians declining to offer trials were preference for standard of care (53%) and concerns about tolerability (29.3%). Enrollment rates onto log trials did not differ between white and black (P = .15) or between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients (P = .73). Other races had lower enrollment rates than whites and blacks. Sites valued the ready access to log data on enrollment barriers, with some sites changing practices to address those barriers.

CONCLUSION

Use of screening logs to document enrollment barriers at the local level can facilitate development of strategies to enhance clinical trial accrual.

The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations

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.

Barriers to research in palliative care in France

PURPOSE

Palliative care (PC) needs expansion of its research capacity to improve the quality of care. This is particularly true for France that contributed less than 2% of all European PC research publications. We conducted a survey to assess the barriers French healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in PC research had to face.

METHODS

We surveyed all 420 PC departments registered in the French National Association for Palliative Care (SFAP) database using a previously used questionnaire. We documented the ethical limitations, time constraints, financial resources, patient issues and methodological issues related to PC research.

RESULTS

We obtained 382 responses. Ninety-two (24.1%) HCPs were involved in a research project during the last 5 years. In univariate results, predictors of being involved in PC research were men (p=0.004), physician (p=0.022), working at a university hospital (p<0.001). There was a trend towards working in a PC unit (p=0.052). The main barriers to participating in PC research were lack of time (80.1%) and patient issues (47.4%). Lack of methodological support (33.0%) and financial limitations (30.4%) were also reported as major barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a consensus that PC research and publication in the English language for peer-reviewed journals must be expanded in France but at this stage, clinical teams still lack specific funding and appropriate support. More research is needed to confirm our results and to determine the best ways to develop PC research capacity in France.