Evaluating the frequency of English language requirements in clinical trial eligibility criteria: A systematic analysis using ClinicalTrials.gov

Tools to improve discharge equity: Protocol for the pilot TIDE trial

Background

Written discharge instructions after hospitalization promote patient understanding and positive clinical outcomes. Despite the rising prevalence of patients with non-English language preference (NELP) in the U.S., most hospitals do not routinely provide discharge instructions in their preferred language, thereby placing them at higher risk for medical errors and hospital readmission. Innovative solutions to close this implementation gap at hospital discharge for patients with NELP are needed. The Tools to Improve Discharge Equity (TIDE) intervention leverages communication practices proven effective in addressing communication barriers to create language concordant discharge tools from hospital discharge paperwork.

Methods

We present the protocol for a type I hybrid implementation-effectiveness pilot randomized trial. The TIDE intervention includes a translated medication calendar, pictographs, and an audio recording of the discharge instructions in the patient's preferred language. We will recruit an estimated 50 patient participants from the hospital's top four non-English language groups-Spanish, Haitian Creole, Cape Verdean Creole, and Vietnamese-as well as the nurse and in-person interpreter caring for them. Outcomes include patient recall of primary diagnosis and overall understanding of discharge instructions using a newly developed 24-point score, patient experience, implementation measures (acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness), and clinical effectiveness (including hospital reutilization). A mixed methods evaluation will identify determinants of intervention uptake to guide selection of multi-level implementation strategies to test in a future hybrid type III trial.

Discussion

The TIDE intervention is the first hospital discharge intervention designed for patients with NELP. Result will inform future efforts to improve the safety and equity of the hospital discharge process.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov NCT05988229 (August 14, 2023) https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05988229.

Persistent exclusion of non-English speakers in Pediatric research: a national analysis using ClinicalTrials.gov

Over one-fifth of US households speak a language other than English. While some studies have documented language-based disparities in pediatric clinical research, they are limited in scope and not representative of all US pediatric trials. Because language-based exclusion, if extensive, would limit the generalizability of the results of the research, we performed a systematic analysis of language-based eligibility criteria across all 4982 US pediatric interventional clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 2019 to 2022. We found that 70.0% [95% CI: 68.8-71.3%] of trials did not include any information about language while 23.4% [22.2-24.5%] had explicit English language requirements, of which only a minority (14.4%) included justifications for the limitation. Conversely, 6.6% [5.9-7.3%] of trials accommodated non-English languages. Trials with a posted protocol were more likely than all registered trials to include English language requirements (P < 0.00001). Trials with a federal sponsor, a behavioral intervention, or a focus on prevention or supportive care were more likely to report information about language when compared to all registered trials (P < 0.001), while trials with industry sponsors, drug or biological interventions, or a focus on treatment were less likely to do so (P < 0.001). Although modest, the percentage of trials requiring English decreased and the percentage offering language services increased from 2019 to 2022. IMPACT STATEMENT: Of 4982 US pediatric interventional studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 2019 to 2022, 70.0% did not include any information about language while 23.4% explicitly included English language requirements. Of the trials requiring English, only 14.4% provided a justification for the requirement. Trials with a posted protocol were more likely to require English than all registered trials. Trials with industry sponsors, drug-based/biological interventions, or a treatment focus were less likely to mention language information than all registered trials.

Achieving Language Justice in Pediatric Hematology-Oncology: A Multinational Perspective for Language-Concordant Equitable Patient- and Family-Centered Care and Research Inclusion

Language-discordant healthcare encounters-when the patient/caregiver and clinician are not able to communicate directly in the patient's/caregiver's preferred language-are associated with worse quality of care, increased adverse events, and research exclusion. Here, we describe the current state of language justice in clinical practice and research in the United States, Canada, and Spain, discuss the role of social determinants of health and language, in patient safety and health outcomes and review an example of culturally and linguistically concordant interventions to increase research participation. We close with practical and global strategies to increase multilingual research participation and to provide equitable patient- and family-centered care in pediatric hematology-oncology.

Impact of limited language proficiency on participation in venous thromboembolism research: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Limited language proficiency is an established barrier to research participation among racialized populations. While prior studies have highlighted the underrepresentation of racialized populations in venous thromboembolism (VTE) research, the impact of limited language proficiency as a reason for nonconsent among eligible patients is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the impact of language barrier as the primary reason for VTE research non-participation.

METHODS

We reviewed all prospective VTE studies conducted at a research-intensive academic thrombosis research program in Canada between 2014 and 2024. Studies with screening logs that systematically and consecutively captured eligibility assessment and reasons for nonconsent were included. Primary outcome was nonconsent of a screen-eligible patient due to limited language proficiency as the reported reason. We derived pooled estimates of nonconsent due to limited language proficiency as a proportion of consented participants and determined subgroup rates by phase of VTE management, associated medical conditions, and recruitment settings.

RESULTS

Screening logs of 28 studies with 22 057 screening events, 8317 screen-eligible patients, and 3320 consented participants were included. For every 100 consented participants, 3.2 (95% CI, 2.0-5.3) screen-eligible individuals were unable to provide consent due to limited language proficiency. Rates of nonconsent were highest in studies involving cancer (5.6 per 100 participants; 95% CI, 2.9-10.4) and in studies recruiting patients from ambulatory settings outside of the thrombosis clinic (10.8 per 100 participants; 95% CI, 4.8-22.6).

CONCLUSION

Language proficiency is a key barrier to VTE research participation. Urgent implementation of targeted interventions aimed at mitigating linguistic barriers is essential to ensure equitable opportunities for VTE research participation for racialized patients disproportionately affected by language proficiency.

Language-based exclusion associations with racial and ethnic disparities in thyroid cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Racial and ethnic disparities in thyroid cancer care may be mitigated by improving enrollment of more diverse patient populations in clinical trials. We studied trial eligibility criteria and enrollment to assess barriers to equitable representation.

METHODS

ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for studies on thyroid cancer treatment conducted between 1993 and 2023. The inclusion and exclusion criteria of each study were examined. For published studies, reported demographic information was collected. Observed enrollment by race was compared with the expected distribution as determined using data from the US Census and the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) databases. Over- and under-representation was defined as the ratio of observed to expected (O/E) enrollment by the race and ethnicity group.

RESULTS

Of 309 thyroid cancer-related trials, 23 (7.4%) used language as an exclusion criterion. Most were interventional (n = 239, 77.3%), university-initiated (194, 62.8%), and drug/device-focused (195, 63.1%). Of studies that excluded by language, 20 (87.0%) were university-initiated. Eighty-eight trials were subsequently published, with 16 (18.2%) reporting race and/or ethnicity distributions. When comparing O/E ratios, White American participants were over-represented (O/E ratio: 1.2, P < .0001). Under-represented groups included Asian/Native Hawaiian (O/E ratio: 0.6, P = .0085), Black (0.6, P = .014), Native American (0.2, P = .072), and Hispanic patients (0.2, P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Over the last 3 decades, 1 in 13 thyroid cancer-related clinical trials excluded patients based on language. In the fraction of published studies to report on racial and ethnic demographics, Asian/Native Hawaiian, Black, and Hispanic patients were under-represented. Improved reporting of demographics in published studies and elimination of exclusion criteria such as language that hinder enrollment of minority patients could improve equitable representation of patients in thyroid cancer clinical trials.

DiaBetter Together: Clinical trial protocol for a strengths-based Peer Mentor intervention for young adults with type 1 diabetes transitioning to adult care

BACKGROUND

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) management is challenging for young adults, who are expected to transfer from the pediatric to adult T1D healthcare system while also managing typical developmental demands (e.g., social, financial, work/school, residential). Many young adults have extended gaps in care before following up in adult care, increasing risk for poor health outcomes. There are few evidence-based programs to support young adults with T1D to promote a timelier transition during this period. This paper reports on the design of DiaBetter Together, a randomized controlled trial to evaluate a 12-month Peer Mentor-delivered intervention compared to usual care among young adults with T1D during the transfer from pediatric to adult care.

METHODS

One-hundred young adults (age 17-25) with T1D and 29 Peer Mentors enrolled in this randomized clinical trial. Peer Mentors are experienced, older young adults with T1D, trained by the study team to share transition experiences and strategies to successfully navigate the adult healthcare system, help young adults prepare for the first adult care visit, and use strengths-based support strategies to teach and model skills for managing T1D-related challenges.

RESULTS

The primary outcome of the trial is HbA1c, and secondary outcomes include time to adult care, engagement in diabetes self-management behaviors, and psychosocial well-being.

CONCLUSION

The goal of this research is to evaluate a developmentally appropriate, supportive intervention that can improve T1D self-management and successful transfer of care during the difficult young adult years and promote optimal T1D health outcomes.

Longitudinal changes in lifestyle behaviours and cardiovascular health during the transition to fatherhood: the Dad Bod observational cohort study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Despite the importance of the transition to fatherhood as a critical life stage among young adult men, much remains unknown about the factors predictive of ideal cardiovascular health (CVH) and how CVH is impacted as young men face new roles and responsibilities associated with fatherhood.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

To address this gap, the Dad Bod Study is a prospective, longitudinal and observational study designed to examine how fatherhood affects young men's CVH. A total of 125, first-time prospective fathers (men, 19-39 years) will be enrolled and followed over 1.5 years. Metrics of the American Heart Association's 'Life's Essential 8' as well as demographic, social and psychosocial factors will be collected at four time points (baseline (during the pregnant partner's second trimester), 1-month post partum, 6 months post partum and 1 year post partum). The primary aims are to measure predictors of CVH among first-time fathers and describe longitudinal changes in CVH. A secondary aim is to identify the best practices for recruitment, retention and remote data collection in this population.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the University of California, Irvine Institutional Review Board (IRB #4907, approved 1 May 2024). Participants will provide written consent. Study data will be disseminated in manuscripts submitted to peer-reviewed journals as well as in abstracts submitted to conferences and in the resulting posters and presentations. After study completion, anonymised data and material will be made publicly available.

How to optimize and evaluate diversity in gynecologic cancer clinical trials: statements from the GCIG Barcelona Meeting

Findings from clinical trials have led to advancement of care for patients with gynecologic malignancies. However, restrictive inclusion of patients into trials has been widely criticized for inadequate representation of the real-world population. Ideally, patients enrolled in clinical trials should represent a broader population to enhance external validity and facilitate translation of outcomes across all relevant groups. Specifically, there has been a systematic lack of data for underrepresented groups, with many studies failing to report or differentiate study participants based on sociodemographic domains, such as race and ethnicity. As such, the impact of treatment in these underrepresented groups is poorly understood, and clinical outcomes according to various sociodemographic factors are infrequently assessed. Inclusion of diverse trial participants, with different racial and ethnic background, is essential for the understanding of factors that may impact clinical outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a multi-national meeting of clinical trial groups and industry with the goal of increasing equity, diversity, and inclusion in gynecologic cancer clinical trials and to address barriers to recruitment, participation, and harmonization of data collection and reporting. These Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) statements present recommendations and strategies for the gynecologic cancer research community to improve equity, diversity, and inclusion in gynecologic cancer clinical trials.

Enhancing neuro-oncology care through equity-driven applications of artificial intelligence

The disease course and clinical outcome for brain tumor patients depend not only on the molecular and histological features of the tumor but also on the patient's demographics and social determinants of health. While current investigations in neuro-oncology have broadly utilized artificial intelligence (AI) to enrich tumor diagnosis and more accurately predict treatment response, postoperative complications, and survival, equity-driven applications of AI have been limited. However, AI applications to advance health equity in the broader medical field have the potential to serve as practical blueprints to address known disparities in neuro-oncologic care. In this consensus review, we will describe current applications of AI in neuro-oncology, postulate viable AI solutions for the most pressing inequities in neuro-oncology based on broader literature, propose a framework for the effective integration of equity into AI-based neuro-oncology research, and close with the limitations of AI.

Increasing research study engagement in minoritized populations: An example from the Black Women Inflammation and Tau Study

Black women are sorely underrepresented in studies of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) despite higher rates of ADRD diagnoses than in non-Hispanic White women. There are many reasons for underrepresentation, including medical mistrust, limited access to clinical studies, and restrictive study inclusion criteria. These pervasive barriers to research participation are often not considered during study development and, if eventually thought of tend to be after the fact. Community-engaged research (CER) approaches are an effective method for reducing participation barriers. This article describes how CER approaches were used to develop the Black Women Inflammation and Tau Study (BWITS), a prospective study to identify biopsychosocial risk factors for ADRD in Black women. Guidelines discussed here for future ADRD research in diverse populations are informed by Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR), the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD), and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). HIGHLIGHTS: Understand the historical tragedies related to medical practices and research designs that may contribute to the underrepresentation of Black Americans in research studies today. Highlight community-engaged research approaches that effectively reduce participation barriers in minoritized groups. Review Community-Based Participatory Research, National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute guidelines for conducting research with minoritized communities. Describe using the three frameworks to inform the study development protocol for the Black Women Inflammation and Tau Study. Conclude by offering study design considerations that we hope can be a helpful starting point for others conducting research with minoritized communities.

Reporting Primary Language in Cardiology Clinical Trials

This Viewpoint highlights the limited representation of patients with non-English language preference (NELP) in cardiology clinical trials and registries and recommends several methods to better include patients with NELP.

Longitudinal Changes in Lifestyle Behaviors and Cardiovascular Health During the Transition to Fatherhood: The Dad Bod Study Rationale and Design

Background

Despite the importance of the transition to fatherhood as a critical life stage among young adult men, much remains unknown about the factors predictive of ideal cardiovascular health (CVH) and how CVH is impacted as young men face new roles and responsibilities associated with fatherhood.

Methods

To address this gap, the Dad Bod Study is a prospective, longitudinal and observational study designed to examine how fatherhood affects young men's CVH. A total of 125, first-time prospective fathers (men, 19-39 years) will be enrolled and followed over 1.5 years. Metrics of the American Heart Association's "Life's Essential 8" as well as demographic, social, and psychosocial factors will be collected at four time points ((baseline (during the pregnant partner's 2nd trimester) 1-month postpartum, 6-months postpartum, and 1-year postpartum). The primary aims are to measure predictors of CVH among first-time fathers and describe longitudinal changes in CVH. A secondary aim is to identify best practices for recruitment, retention, and remote data collection in this population.

Summary

The Dad Bod Study offers a novel examination of CVH among first-time fathers, exploring how new paternal roles and responsibilities impact cardiovascular health. Findings may provide key insights into critical CVH behaviors and risk factors to monitor, preserve, and improve as young men transition to fatherhood.

Heard but Excluded: A Language Manifesto

This Viewpoint discusses dismantling language barriers via multipronged approaches grounded in innovation, human-centered design, and systems thinking in 3 key areas.

Absolute neutrophil count clinical trial eligibility criteria for pediatric oncology phase I and phase I/II trials by sponsorship

Normal absolute neutrophil count (ANC) variations, as seen with Duffy-null associated neutrophil count (DANC), are not accounted for in trial eligibility, which may contribute to racial enrollment disparities. We describe ANC eligibility for pediatric oncology phase I/II clinical trials according to primary sponsorship from 2010 to 2023 using ClinicalTrials.gov. Out of 438 trials, 20% were industry-sponsored. Total 17% of trials required ANC ≥1500 cells/μL for enrollment; however, industry-sponsored trials were significantly more likely to require ANC ≥1500 cells/μL than non-industry-sponsored trials (odds ratio 2.53, 95% confidence interval: 1.39-4.62; p < .001). These data suggest laboratory exclusion criteria are one possible mechanism for pediatric clinical trial enrollment disparities.

Operationalizing Equity, Inclusion, and Access in Research Practice at a Large Academic Institution

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare advances are hindered by underrepresentation in prospective research; sociodemographic, data, and measurement infidelity in retrospective research; and a paucity of guidelines surrounding equitable research practices.

OBJECTIVE

The Joint Research Practices Working Group was created in 2021 to develop and disseminate guidelines for the conduct of inclusive and equitable research.

METHODS

Volunteer faculty and staff from two research centers at the University of Pennsylvania initiated a multi-pronged approach to guideline development, including literature searches, center-level feedback, and mutual learning with local experts.

RESULTS

We developed guidelines for (1) participant payment and incentives; (2) language interpretation and translation; (3) plain language in research communications; (4) readability of study materials; and (5) inclusive language for scientific communications. Key recommendations include (1) offer cash payments and multiple payment options to participants when required actions are completed; (2) identify top languages of your target population, map points of contact, and determine available interpretation and translation resources; (3) assess reading levels of materials and simplify language, targeting 6th- to 8th-grade reading levels; (4) improve readability through text formatting and style, symbols, and visuals; and (5) use specific, humanizing terms as adjectives rather than nouns.

CONCLUSIONS

Diversity, inclusion, and access are critical values for research conduct that promotes justice and equity. These values can be operationalized through organizational commitment that combines bottom-up and top-down approaches and through partnerships across organizations that promote mutual learning and synergy. While our guidelines represent best practices at one time, we recognize that practices evolve and need to be evaluated continuously for accuracy and relevance. Our intention is to bring awareness to these critical topics and form a foundation for important conversations surrounding equitable and inclusive research practices.

Social Determinants of Health and Disparities in Thyroid Care

BACKGROUND

There have been documented racial and ethnic disparities in the care and clinical outcomes of patients with thyroid disease.

CONTEXT

Key to improving disparities in thyroid care is understanding the context for racial and ethnic disparities, which includes acknowledging and addressing social determinants of health. Thyroid disease diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship care are impacted by patient- and system-level factors, including socioeconomic status and economic stability, language, education, health literacy, and health care systems and health policy. The relationship between these factors and downstream clinical outcomes is intricate and complex, underscoring the need for a multifaceted approach to mitigate these disparities.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the factors that contribute to disparities in thyroid disease is critically important. There is a need for future targeted and multilevel interventions to address these disparities, while considering societal, health care, clinician, and patient perspectives.

Demographic reporting and language exclusion in gynecologic oncology clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Participation in clinical trials may help mitigate disparate cancer outcomes. Thus, ensuring equitable access to clinical trials is a major priority for national cancer organizations.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine clinical trial eligibility criteria that may adversely affect the enrollment of underrepresented groups and assess the availability of demographic information in published gynecologic oncology studies.

STUDY DESIGN

ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for gynecologic oncology studies conducted between 1997 and 2021. Each study's inclusion and exclusion criteria were reviewed to determine whether demographic factors were used for enrollment screening. For published studies, demographic variables that were reported were identified. The expected clinical trial enrollment based on disease incidence and mortality was compared with the observed trial enrollment based on race.

RESULTS

There were 1597 gynecologic oncology studies: 883 (55%) from ovarian cancer studies, 336 (21%) from cervical cancer studies, 262 (17%) from uterine cancer studies, and 116 (7%) from multisite gynecologic oncology studies. Of the 581 published studies, 554 (95%) reported age, 363 (63%) reported race, and 171 (29%) reported ethnicities. Cervical cancer studies were most likely to report demographic information, including race (P=.026) and ethnicity (P<.001). During the study period, 189 studies (12%) excluded patients based on the language spoken. Industry-sponsored trials (odds ratio, 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.30) and organization-sponsored trials (odds ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.73) were less likely to exclude patients because of language than investigator-initiated trials. A minority of patients (37%) in cervical cancer trials were of White race, compared with 85% of patients in uterine cancer trials and 82% of patients in ovarian cancer trials.

CONCLUSION

Over the last 3 decades, 1 in 10 gynecologic oncology trials excluded patients because of language. Race and ethnicity were reported in more than half of the available studies. Initiatives to increase transparency in recruiting underrepresented patients and reporting demographic data are urgently needed.

Operationalizing the GRADE-equity criterion to inform guideline recommendations: application to a medical cannabis guideline

OBJECTIVES

Incorporating health equity considerations into guideline development often requires information beyond that gathered through traditional evidence synthesis methodology. This article outlines an operationalization plan for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-equity criterion to gather and assess evidence from primary studies within systematic reviews, enhancing guideline recommendations to promote equity. We demonstrate its use in a clinical guideline on medical cannabis for chronic pain.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We reviewed GRADE guidance and resources recommended by team members regarding the use of evidence for equity considerations, drafted an operationalization plan, and iteratively refined it through team discussion and feedback and piloted it on a medicinal cannabis guideline.

RESULTS

We propose a seven-step approach: 1) identify disadvantaged populations, 2) examine available data for specific populations, 3) evaluate population baseline risk for primary outcomes, 4) assess representation of these populations in primary studies, 5) appraise analyses, 6) note barriers to implementation of effective interventions for these populations, and 7) suggest supportive strategies to facilitate implementation of effective interventions.

CONCLUSION

Our approach assists guideline developers in recognizing equity considerations, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Its application across various guideline topics can verify its feasibility and necessary adjustments.

An absence of translated consent forms limits oncologic clinical trial enrollment for limited English proficiency participants

OBJECTIVES

A lack of diversity amongst participants in cancer clinical trials has raised scrutiny over the past decade. Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) are further excluded. One modifiable reason for low LEP participation is a lack of non-English consent forms.

METHODS

We queried the clinical trials registry database at an academic hospital serving a predominantly Spanish-speaking patient population. Clinical trials related to gynecology oncology were evaluated for the availability of fully translated Spanish consent forms, the racial and ethnic identification of enrolled patients, and the number of signed Spanish consents. Enrolment data was compared before and after 2019, when institutional financial support for document translation was withdrawn.

RESULTS

Sixteen gynecologic oncology clinical trials were opened between 2014 and 2022, with 10 trials enrolling 128 patients. Eight trials opened prior to 2019, all with fully translated consent forms. Seven of these trials enrolled 99 participants, 70% of whom identified as Hispanic and 60% who signed a Spanish consent. Eight trials opened after 2019 and one had a fully translated consent form. Three of the trials enrolled 29 participants, with 10% of subjects identifying as Hispanic and none signing a Spanish consent form.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a decrease in fully translated clinical trial consent forms for gynecologic oncology studies following the loss of subsidized translation services in our single institution with a predominantly LEP population. This correlated with a decrease in enrollment of Hispanic subjects. To increase enrollment of diverse participants, including those with LEP, simple actions such as fully translating consent forms would help maintain equity in research conduct and improve clinical outcomes through trial involvement.

Selection and Prejudice: Addressing Clinical Trial Disparities With a Review of Current Shortcomings and Future Directions

Growing evidence has demonstrated significant, persistent, and widespread disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment across myriad disease sites and target populations. Although mechanisms underlying such disparities are complex and multifactorial, clinical trial eligibility criteria may serve as a key structural barrier to equitable and diverse trial enrollment. In this review, we provide an overview of the data describing historical and current disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment and subsequently describe several patient-, institution-, and trial-related factors which appear to be key drivers of enrollment inequity, with specific discussion regarding the impact of eligibility criteria. We further describe the landscape of ongoing professional efforts aimed at eliminating clinical trial disparities through various medical, professional, and advocacy groups. The review concludes with a practical discussion of how modernization of eligibility criteria in clinical trials may decrease or eliminate trial disparities, including specific actionable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of future eligibility criteria.

Trial Participation and Outcomes Among English-Speaking and Spanish-Speaking Patients With Appendicitis Randomized to Antibiotics: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Spanish-speaking participants are underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting study generalizability and contributing to ongoing health inequity. The Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial intentionally included Spanish-speaking participants.

Objective

To describe trial participation and compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes among Spanish-speaking and English-speaking participants with acute appendicitis randomized to antibiotics.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, a pragmatic randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in adult patients with imaging-confirmed appendicitis enrolled at 25 centers across the US from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. The trial was conducted in English and Spanish. All 776 participants randomized to antibiotics are included in this analysis. The data were analyzed from November 15, 2021, through August 24, 2022.

Intervention

Randomization to a 10-day course of antibiotics or appendectomy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Trial participation, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire scores (higher scores indicating a better health status), rate of appendectomy, treatment satisfaction, decisional regret, and days of work missed. Outcomes are also reported for a subset of participants that were recruited from the 5 sites with a large proportion of Spanish-speaking participants.

Results

Among eligible patients 476 of 1050 Spanish speakers (45%) and 1076 of 3982 of English speakers (27%) consented, comprising the 1552 participants who underwent 1:1 randomization (mean age, 38.0 years; 976 male [63%]). Of the 776 participants randomized to antibiotics, 238 were Spanish speaking (31%). Among Spanish speakers randomized to antibiotics, the rate of appendectomy was 22% (95% CI, 17%-28%) at 30 days and 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) at 1 year, while in English speakers, these rates were 20% (95% CI, 16%-23%) at 30 days and 42% (95% CI 38%-47%) at 1 year. Mean EQ-5D scores were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.95) among Spanish speakers and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.93) among English speakers. Symptom resolution at 30 days was reported by 68% (95% CI, 61%-74%) of Spanish speakers and 69% (95% CI, 64%-73%) of English speakers. Spanish speakers missed 6.69 (95% CI, 5.51-7.87) days of work on average, while English speakers missed 3.76 (95% CI, 3.20-4.32) days. Presentation to the emergency department or urgent care, hospitalization, treatment dissatisfaction, and decisional regret were low for both groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

A high proportion of Spanish speakers participated in the CODA trial. Clinical and most patient-reported outcomes were similar for English- and Spanish-speaking participants treated with antibiotics. Spanish speakers reported more days of missed work.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Review of diversity, equity, and inclusion by ethics committees: A Delphi consensus statement

The appropriate representation of diverse populations in interventional trials remains problematic. A Delphi process was used to affirm the central role that ethics committees and institutions play in this process and to establish consensus upon 25 consolidated recommendations across four themes to promote diversity and inclusion in interventional clinical research.

Consent document translation expense hinders inclusive clinical trial enrolment

Patients from historically under-represented racial and ethnic groups are enrolled in cancer clinical trials at disproportionately low rates in the USA1-3. As these patients often have limited English proficiency4-7, we hypothesized that one barrier to their inclusion is the cost to investigators of translating consent documents. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated more than 12,000 consent events at a large cancer centre and assessed whether patients requiring translated consent documents would sign consent documents less frequently in studies lacking industry sponsorship (for which the principal investigator pays the translation costs) than for industry-sponsored studies (for which the translation costs are covered by the sponsor). Here we show that the proportion of consent events for patients with limited English proficiency in studies not sponsored by industry was approximately half of that seen in industry-sponsored studies. We also show that among those signing consent documents, the proportion of consent documents translated into the patient's primary language in studies without industry sponsorship was approximately half of that seen in industry-sponsored studies. The results suggest that the cost of consent document translation in trials not sponsored by industry could be a potentially modifiable barrier to the inclusion of patients with limited English proficiency.

Assessing Diversity in Newborn Genomic Sequencing Research Recruitment: Race/Ethnicity and Primary Spoken Language Variation in Eligibility, Enrollment, and Reasons for Declining

PURPOSE

Diagnostic genomic research has the potential to directly benefit participants. This study sought to identify barriers to equitable enrollment of acutely ill newborns into a diagnostic genomic sequencing research study.

METHODS

We reviewed the 16-month recruitment process of a diagnostic genomic research study enrolling newborns admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit at a regional pediatric hospital that primarily serves English- and Spanish-speaking families. Differences in eligibility, enrollment, and reasons for not enrolling were examined as functions of race/ethnicity and primary spoken language.

FINDINGS

Of the 1248 newborns admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, 46% (n = 580) were eligible, and 17% (n = 213) were enrolled. Of the 16 languages represented among the newborns' families, 4 (25%) had translated consent documents. Speaking a language other than English or Spanish increased a newborn's likelihood of being ineligible by 5.9 times (P < 0.001) after controlling for race/ethnicity. The main reason for ineligibility was documented as the clinical team declined having their patient recruited (41% [51 of 125]). This reason significantly affected families who spoke languages other than English or Spanish and was able to be remediated with training of the research staff. Stress (20% [18 of 90]) and the study intervention(s) (20% [18 of 90]) were the main reasons given for not enrolling.

IMPLICATIONS

This analysis of eligibility, enrollment, and reasons for not enrolling in a diagnostic genomic research study found that recruitment generally did not differ as a function of a newborn's race/ethnicity. However, differences were observed depending on the parent's primary spoken language. Regular monitoring and training can improve equitable enrollment into diagnostic genomic research. There are also opportunities at the federal level to improve access to those with limited English proficiency and thus decrease disparities in representation in research participation.

IRBs and the Protection-Inclusion Dilemma: Finding a Balance

Institutional review boards, tasked with facilitating ethical research, are often pulled in competing directions. In what we call the protection-inclusion dilemma, we acknowledge the tensions IRBs face in aiming to both protect potential research participants from harm and include under-represented populations in research. In this manuscript, we examine the history of protectionism that has dominated research ethics oversight in the United States, as well as two responses to such protectionism: inclusion initiatives and critiques of the term vulnerability. We look at what we know about IRB decision-making in relation to protecting and including "vulnerable" groups in research and examine the lack of regulatory guidance related to this dilemma, which encourages protection over inclusion within IRB practice. Finally, we offer recommendations related to how IRBs might strike a better balance between inclusion and protection in research ethics oversight.

Access Denied: Disparities in Thyroid Cancer Clinical Trials

For thyroid cancer clinical trials, the inclusion of participants from diverse patient populations is uniquely important given existing racial/ethnic disparities in thyroid cancer care. Since 2011, a paradigm shift has occurred in the treatment of advanced thyroid cancer with the approval of multiple systemic therapies by the US Food and Drug Administration based on their use in the clinical trials setting. Although these clinical trials recruited patients from up to 164 sites in 25 countries, the inclusion of racial/ethnic minority patients remained low. In this mini-review, we provide an overview of barriers to accessing cancer clinical trials, framed in the context of why patients with thyroid cancer may be uniquely vulnerable. Multilevel interventions and increased funding for thyroid cancer research are necessary to increase access to and recruitment of under-represented patient populations into thyroid cancer clinical trials.

Recruitment of diverse community health center patients in a pragmatic weight gain prevention trial

Introduction

Pragmatic trials are needed to establish evidence-based obesity treatment in primary care settings, particularly in community health centers (CHCs) that serve populations at heightened risk of obesity. Recruiting a representative trial sample is a critical first step to informing care for diverse communities. We described recruitment strategies utilized in a pragmatic obesity trial and assessed the sociodemographic characteristics and odds of enrollment by recruitment strategy.

Methods

We analyzed data from Balance, a pragmatic trial implemented within a network of CHCs. We recruited participants via health center-based and electronic health record (EHR)-informed mail recruitment. We analyzed associations between sociodemographic characteristics and the return rate of patient authorization forms (required for participation) from EHR-informed mail recruitment. We also compared sociodemographic characteristics and randomization odds by recruitment strategy after returning authorization forms.

Results

Of the individuals recruited through EHR-informed mail recruitment, females were more likely than males to return authorization forms; however, there were no differences in rates of return by preferred language (English/Spanish) or age. Females; underrepresented racial and ethnic groups; Spanish speakers; younger adults; and those with lower education levels were recruited more successfully in the health center. In contrast, their counterparts were more responsive to mail recruitment. Once authorization forms were returned, the odds of being randomized did not significantly differ by recruitment method.

Conclusion

Health center-based recruitment was essential to meeting recruitment targets in a pragmatic weight gain prevention trial, specifically for Hispanic and Spanish-speaking communities. Future pragmatic trials should consider leveraging in-person recruitment for underrepresented groups in research.

Participation of Patients With Limited English Proficiency in Gynecologic Oncology Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Significant disparities exist in recruitment of minorities to clinical trials, with much of the prior literature focused on race/ethnicity only. Limited English proficiency (LEP) is a known barrier in healthcare that may also drive disparities in trial enrollment. We sought to determine participation rates in gynecologic oncology trials among patients with LEP and to explore barriers to their participation.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study, electronic health record data from >2,700 patients treated over 2 years at one academic gynecologic oncology practice were abstracted and the primary exposure of having LEP was identified. The primary outcome was enrollment in a clinical trial. Demographic, financial, clinical, and healthcare access-related covariates were also abstracted and considered as potential confounders in a multivariable logistic regression model. Age, race, ethnicity, and insurance status were further examined for evidence of effect modification. In addition, a survey was administered to all gynecologic oncology research staff and gynecologic oncology providers (n=25) to assess barriers to research participation among patients with LEP.

RESULTS

Clinical trial enrollment was 7.5% among fluent English speakers and 2.2% among patients with LEP (risk ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.78; P=.007), and remained significantly lower in patients with LEP after adjusting for the identified confounders of Hispanic ethnicity and insurance payer (odds ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.12-0.97; P=.043). There was a trend toward race and LEP interaction: Asian patients were equally likely to participate in research regardless of language fluency, whereas White and Black patients with LEP were less likely to participate than non-LEP patients in both groups (P=.07). Providers reported that the most significant barriers to enrollment of patients with LEP in research were unavailability of translated consent forms and increased time needed to enroll patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with LEP were 3.4 times less likely to participate in gynecologic oncology trials than fluent English speakers. De-aggregation of race, ethnicity, and language proficiency yielded important information about enrollment disparities. These findings offer avenues for future interventions to correct disparities.

The 5Ws of Racial Equity in Research: A Framework for Applying a Racial Equity Lens Throughout the Research Process

Ensuring equity in research is a critical step in advancing health equity. In this perspective, the authors introduce a guiding framework for advancing racial equity in research processes, environments, and among the research workforce, the 5Ws of Racial Equity in Research. Centering their discussion on the 5Ws: Who, What, When, Where, and Why, they use historical and contemporary examples of research inequities to demonstrate how these five simple questions can encourage open discussion and proactive planning for equity in research. They close with an acknowledgment of the framework's broad utility and a researcher-directed call to action.

Almost one in five physiotherapy trials excluded people due to lack of language proficiency: A meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to examine the characteristics of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating physiotherapy interventions for low back pain (LBP) that specified a language-grounded eligibility criterion and the proportion of people being excluded consequently.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This is a meta-epidemiological study of RCTs evaluating at least one type of physiotherapy intervention for treatment or prevention of LBP. Records were retrieved from Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), LILACS, and SciELO from inception to May 2021. We retrieved metadata of each record from PEDro and extracted from included studies: country of recruitment, language-grounded eligibility criterion, and the number of consequent exclusions (if specified).

RESULTS

This study included 2,555 trials. A language-grounded eligibility criterion was specified in 463 trials (18.1%); the proportion was higher in trials conducted in North America and Europe, published after 2000, investigating cognitive and behavioral interventions, and including large sample size. Of these 463 trials, 75 trials (16.2%) reported a total number of 2,152 people being excluded due to lack of language proficiency, equivalent to 12.5% of randomized participants.

CONCLUSION

Nearly one in five physiotherapy clinical trials on LBP excludes people based on language proficiency, compromising the evidence to manage LBP in minority populations.

Development and psychometric evaluation of the Spanish version of the lung cancer screening health belief scale

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe the translation and psychometric testing of the Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scale (LCSHBS) into Spanish.

METHODS

The English version of the LCSHBS was professionally translated in accordance with best practices in the translation of patient-reported outcome tools. The independent certified professional translator completed a forward translation of the LCSHBS from English to Spanish, followed by a review of the translated questionnaire by a certified Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Spanish-English bicultural expert, who reviewed the scale for accuracy.

RESULTS

Initial testing of the scales is valid and reliable, and supports the Spanish version of the LCSHBS (LCSHBS-S). Internal consistency reliability of the scales was supported with Cronbach's ranging from 0.81 to 0.96. Construct validity was established with confirmatory factor analysis and testing for differences between individuals who have and have not screened in theoretically proposed directions. These newly translated scales can help investigators expand this research into the large Spanish-speaking lung screening-eligible population as they develop and test critical behavioural interventions to increase lung cancer screening in the at-risk population.

CONCLUSIONS

Development of effective interventions to enhance shared decision-making about lung cancer screening between patients and providers must first identify factors influencing the individual's screening participation. Future efforts facilitating patient-provider conversations are better informed by understanding the perspective of the individual making the decision.

Linguistic validation of the Spanish version of the Anal Cancer High-Grade squamous intraepithelial lesions outcomes Research Health-Related Symptom Index (A-HRSI): AMC-A04

OBJECTIVES

The Anal Cancer High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) Health-Related Symptom Index (A-HRSI) is a 25-item measure that assesses physical symptoms and impacts, and psychological symptoms. To promote generalizability and equity in the capture of these concepts in Spanish-speaking participants, we linguistically validated a Spanish version of A-HRSI.

METHODS

Following independent forward translation and reconciliation of A-HRSI from English to Spanish, two rounds of cognitive interviews were completed with ANCHOR participants who had been diagnosed with anal HSIL in the prior nine months and preferred delivery of their healthcare in Spanish. Interviews were coded to highlight any items and concepts that were reported as being difficult for any reason by ≥ 3 participants, with such items revised during a research team panel discussion and tested in a second round of interviews if applicable.

RESULTS

Seventeen participants representing 8 nationalities were enrolled (Round 1 n=10, Round 2 n=7); 7 participants reported not completing high school (41.2%). No difficulties were reported with respect to the theoretical concepts measured by A-HRSI. We made modifications to the Spanish translation of eight items and two response option terms in cases where participants had difficulty understanding a term, experienced problems in discriminating between terms, or preferred the use of an alternative term to represent the concept(s).

CONCLUSION

The Spanish version of A-HRSI is a linguistically valid tool that can be used to assess physical symptoms, impacts, and psychological symptoms related to anal HSIL. Language is a tremendous barrier to enrolling patients to clinical trials. The anal cancer high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) outcomes research [ANCHOR] trial is a randomized clinical trial that recently established that the treatment of anal HSIL, versus active monitoring, is effective in reducing incidence of anal cancer in persons living with HIV (PLWH). The ANCHOR Health-Related Symptom Index (A-HRSI) is a 25-item patient-reported outcomes measure that was developed to assess physical symptoms, physical impacts, and psychological symptoms related to anal HSIL. As approximately 10% of ANCHOR participants preferred the delivery of their healthcare in Spanish, the purpose of the present study was to linguistically validate a Spanish version of A-HRSI. Based on feedback from interviews with 17 participants from the ANCHOR trial who had been diagnosed with anal HSIL in the prior nine months and preferred delivery of their healthcare in Spanish, we made modifications to the Spanish translation of eight items and two response option terms in cases where participants had difficulty understanding a term, experienced problems in discriminating between terms, or preferred the use of an alternative term to represent the concept(s). The Spanish version of A-HRSI is a linguistically valid tool that can be used to assess physical symptoms, impacts, and psychological symptoms related to anal HSIL as part of clinical trials or routine care.

Language is brain: Improving neurologic health equity for linguistically diverse populations

Neurologic clinical care requires that clinicians gather and synthesize complex information, including a thorough, precise history and a detailed physical examination that maximizes the patient's cooperation. Yet, for patients who do not speak the dominant language in the country or region where they live, effective communication with their clinician may not always occur. In this article, we discuss the impact of language on neurologic care, focusing on access to care and on the diagnosis and treatment of two common and potentially life-threatening conditions: stroke and epilepsy. We then review implications for clinical neurologic care as well as medical education and present evidence-based recommendations for improving neurologic health equity for linguistically diverse populations. Strategies should integrate professional medical interpreters (for oral communication) and translators (for written materials) into the neurologic team, account for families and caregivers in a culturally humble manner, and teach learners to apply clinical neurologic skills in both language-concordant and discordant situations.

How Should Representation of Subjects With LEP Become More Equitable in Clinical Trials?

Underrepresentation of individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) who speak Spanish is ongoing in phase 3 biomedical clinical trials and exacerbates health inequity. This article suggests strategies for increasing representation of Spanish speakers in clinical rials by emphasizing the importance of early engagement with Spanish language communities, inclusive participant recruitment, and collaborative trial design and implementation. Although investigators and institutions administering government-funded research must meet federal requirements for language assistance, journal editors, peer reviewers, institutional review board members, academic health centers, and all beneficiaries of the biomedical and behavioral research enterprise in the United States must motivate linguistic inclusion.

Applying Civil Rights Law to Clinical Research: Title VI's Equal Access Mandate

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations prohibit federally-funded educational institutions and healthcare centers from engaging in disparate impact discrimination "on the ground of race, color, or national origin" in all of their operations.