Research Professionals' Perspectives, Barriers, and Recommendations Regarding Minority Participation in Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate research professionals' perspectives regarding minority participation in clinical trials. METHODS: A web-based survey of research professionals at US institutions receiving NIH and/or AHRQ funding to conduct clinical research in 2013. Descriptive statistics, mean, standard deviation (SD), and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test were utilized for analysis. RESULTS: Distributed were 13,041 surveys with 967 (7.4%) responses. Overall and race-stratified analyses included 633 and 521 surveys, respectively. A majority agreed that patients' race (mean, 3.4; SD = 1.0) and primary language (mean, 4.0; SD = 0.9) have an effect on enrollment. They had more success in enrolling those whose primary language was the same as their own (mean, 3.8; SD = 1.0), and that a language barrier and time spent arranging for interpreters had prevented them from offering a study to potential candidates (mean, 3.2; SD = 1.2). Non-Caucasian respondents were more likely to agree that "fear of unknown side effects" was a deterrent for minorities (p < 0.01), "minorities are more likely to be unavailable for follow-up phone calls" (p = 0.07), and "the unavailability of translated material discourages non-English speakers from participation" (p = 0.08). They also were more likely to be neutral or agree with being discouraged from enrolling minorities because of the possibility of their withdrawal or being less likely to be available for phone follow-ups and follow-up visits (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Despite a few subtle racial differences in research professionals' perspectives, a majority expressed no hesitation in enrolling minorities. Patients' race and primary language appeared to influence enrollment. A language barrier appeared to be the strongest barrier for research professionals.

Perceived Fall Risk and Functional Decline: Gender Differences in Patient's Willingness to Discuss Fall Risk, Fall History, or to Have a Home Safety Evaluation.

The CDC reports that among older adults, falls are the leading cause of injury-related death and rates of fall-related fractures among older women are twice those of men. We set out to 1) determine patient perceptions (analyzed by gender) about their perceived fall risk compared to their actual risk for functional decline and death and 2) to report their comfort level in discussing their fall history or a home safety plan with their provider. Elders who presented to the Emergency Department (ED†) were surveyed. The survey included demographics, the Falls Efficacy Scale (FES) and the Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES); both validated surveys measuring fall concern and functional decline. Females had higher FES scores (mean 12.3, SD 5.9) than males (mean 9.7, SD 5.9 p = .007) in the 146 surveys analyzed. Females were more likely to report an increased fear of falling, and almost three times more likely to have a VES score of 3 or greater than males (OR = 2.86, 95% CI: 1.17-7.00, p = .02). A strong correlation was observed between FES and VES scores (r = 0.80, p < .001). No difference in correlation was observed between males and females, p = .26. Participants (77 percent) reported they would be comfortable discussing their fall risk with a provider; there was no difference between genders (p = .57). In this study, irrespective of gender, there appears to be a high association between subjects' perceived fall risk and risk for functional decline and death. The majority of patients are likely willing to discuss their fall risk with their provider. These findings may suggest a meaningful opportunity for fall risk mitigation in this setting.

Mechanical falls: are patients willing to discuss their risk with a health care provider?

BACKGROUND: Falls in the elderly cause serious injury. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine subjects' comfort in discussing fall risk and home safety evaluations. METHODS: This prospective study surveyed a convenience sample of subjects (≥50 years old) in an emergency department (ED), health fair (HF), and family practice (FP). The survey included the Falls Efficacy Scale and Vulnerable Elders Survey-validated surveys measuring fall concern and functional decline. Other data-environmental living conditions, participant behaviors, fall frequency-were collected. The associations between perceived fall risk and participant characteristics were assessed using descriptive statistics and random-effects logistic regression. RESULTS: Participants (n = 416, 38% males, 62% females) had a mean age of 67.6 years; 35% were high fall risk. Previous year falls (p = 0.002), use of assistive device (p < 0.001), having at least one alcoholic drink/week (p = 0.043), and poor or fair perceived health status (p < 0.001) were associated with perceived fall risk. HF respondents were more willing than FP respondents to discuss falls (84.9% vs. 73.1%, p = 0.025). The difference was not significant between the HF and ED respondents (84.9% vs. 76.9, p = 0.11). HF subjects were more willing than FP to have a home safety inspection (68.9% vs. 45.9%, p < 0.001). The difference was not significant between the HF and ED respondents (68.9% vs 58.5, p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Perceived and actual fall risks are highly associated. Most participants are willing to discuss their fall risk and a home safety evaluation. HF subjects were most willing to have these discussions; ED subjects were less willing than HF, but not significantly different from health fair participants. FP participants were significantly less willing to have these discussions than HF participants. This may suggest a meaningful opportunity for fall risk prevention in outpatient settings such as health fairs and the ED.