Conceptualizing and Measuring Trust, Mistrust, and Distrust: Implications for Advancing Health Equity and Building Trustworthiness.

Trust is vital to public confidence in health and science, yet there is no consensus on the most useful way to conceptualize, define, measure, or intervene on trust and its related constructs (e.g., mistrust, distrust, and trustworthiness). In this review, we synthesize literature from this wide-ranging field that has conceptual roots in racism, marginalization, and other forms of oppression. We summarize key definitions and conceptual frameworks and offer guidance to scholars aiming to measure these constructs. We also review how trust-related constructs are associated with health outcomes, describe interventions in this field, and provide recommendations for building trust and institutional trustworthiness and advancing health equity. We ultimately call for future efforts to focus on improving the trustworthiness of public health professionals, scientists, health care providers, and systems instead of aiming to increase trust in these entities as they currently exist and behave.

All of Us participant perspectives on the return of value in research.

PURPOSE: To understand participant preferences for receiving specific types of research information, whether information preferences vary across sociodemographic groups, and the types of health providers participants could access to understand returned information. METHODS: All of Us Research Program participants completed a value of returning research information survey. Stratified sampling was implemented to enhance participant diversity and avoid noncoverage. We used weighted multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations between the most valuable information types, access to providers, and sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: Participants (N = 20,405) were diverse in their race/ethnicity (eg, 52% were White, 18% were Hispanic/Latino or Spanish, 3% were Asian, and 20% were Black or African American). Most participants (78.6%) valued information about their risk of serious genetic diseases with available treatment. Primary care physicians, specialists, and genetic counselors were the top providers that participants could access for help understanding returned information. Information preferences and provider access varied across sociodemographic groups. For example, as income levels increased, the odds of placing value on genetic results indicating risk of serious disease with available treatment increased when compared with the lowest income levels (P value < .001). CONCLUSION: Although genetic information was most valuable to participants, preferences about specific information types varied across sociodemographic groups.

Relative predictive value of sociodemographic factors for chronic diseases among All of Us participants: a descriptive analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although sociodemographic characteristics are associated with health disparities, the relative predictive value of different social and demographic factors remains largely unknown. This study aimed to describe the sociodemographic characteristics of All of Us participants and evaluate the predictive value of each factor for chronic diseases associated with high morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis using de-identified survey data from the All of Us Research Program, which has collected social, demographic, and health information from adults living in the United States since May 2018. Sociodemographic data included self-reported age, sex, gender, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, income, education, health insurance, primary care provider (PCP) status, and health literacy scores. We analyzed the self-reported prevalence of hypertension, coronary artery disease, any cancer, skin cancer, lung disease, diabetes, obesity, and chronic kidney disease. Finally, we assessed the relative importance of each sociodemographic factor for predicting each chronic disease using the adequacy index for each predictor from logistic regression. RESULTS: Among the 372,050 participants in this analysis, the median age was 53 years, 59.8% reported female sex, and the most common racial/ethnic categories were White (54.0%), Black (19.9%), and Hispanic/Latino (16.7%). Participants who identified as Asian, Middle Eastern/North African, and White were the most likely to report annual incomes greater than $200,000, advanced degrees, and employer or union insurance, while participants who identified as Black, Hispanic, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander were the most likely to report annual incomes less than $10,000, less than a high school education, and Medicaid insurance. We found that age was most predictive of hypertension, coronary artery disease, any cancer, skin cancer, diabetes, obesity, and chronic kidney disease. Insurance type was most predictive of lung disease. Notably, no two health conditions had the same order of importance for sociodemographic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Age was the best predictor for the assessed chronic diseases, but the relative predictive value of income, education, health insurance, PCP status, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation was highly variable across health conditions. Identifying the sociodemographic groups with the largest disparities in a specific disease can guide future interventions to promote health equity.

Hospital-at-Home: Multistakeholder Considerations for Program Dissemination and Scale.

Policy Points Hospital-at-Home (HaH) is a home-based alternative for acute care that has expanded significantly under COVID-19 regulatory flexibilities. The post-pandemic policy agenda for HaH will require consideration of multistakeholder perspectives, including patient, caregiver, provider, clinical operations, technology, equity, legal, quality, and payer. Key policy challenges include reaching a consensus on program standards, clarifying caregivers' issues, creating sustainable reimbursement mechanisms, and mitigating potential equity concerns. Key policy prescriptions include creating a national surveillance system for quality and safety, clarifying legal standards for care in the home, and deploying payment reforms through value-based models.

Development and pilot implementation of guidelines for culturally tailored research recruitment materials for African Americans and Latinos.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies support cultural tailoring of recruitment materials as a strategy to promote the enrollment of minoritized groups in clinical trials. However, there is a lack of guidance for research teams to create culturally tailored materials, potentially contributing to low recruitment rates of minoritized groups. We describe the development and pilot testing of recruitment material guidelines used to culturally tailor clinical trial recruitment materials targeting African Americans and Latinos. METHODS: The guideline development team consisted of investigators, research staff, and community leaders and members experienced in the recruitment and community engagement of minoritized groups. The recruitment material guidelines were developed using the literature, focus groups with African Americans and Latinos, the teams' research experience, and guidance from a community advisory board. To assess the effectiveness of the guidelines, a pilot study was conducted comparing advertisement click-through rates and enrollment outcomes between two institutions differing in use of culturally tailored versus non-tailored Facebook banner ads for the "Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness" (ADAPTABLE) study. RESULTS: Five themes emerged from focus groups: (1) employ diversity and inclusion in recruitment efforts; (2) access multiple recruitment channels to increase reach and possible participation; (3) increase your "footwork"; (4) personalize outreach and recruitment to specific groups' beliefs and values; (5) align recruitment messaging with language preferences and motivations for study participation; and (6) specify incentives for participation. Guidelines were: 1) be inclusive; 2) use all forms of media; 3) take a personalized approach; 4) align recruitment messaging with motivations for study participation; 5) specify incentives; and 6) get out into the community. Additional guidelines were developed addressing specific considerations for images and language when targeting African American and Latino populations. Pilot study results demonstrated that clicks per impression ratio (0.47 clicks per impression vs. 0.03 clicks per impression) and the percentage of African American enrollment were significantly higher when using tailored compared to non-tailored ads (12.8% vs. 8.3%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The recruitment material guidelines offer practical recommendations to reach diverse populations for clinical trial participation more effectively. Our preliminary data supports use of these guidelines as a strategy to enhance recruitment of minoritized groups into clinical research studies.

Determinants of stage at diagnosis of HPV-related cancer including area deprivation and clinical factors.

BACKGROUND: Collecting social determinants of health in electronic health records is time-consuming. Meanwhile, an Area Deprivation Index (ADI) aggregates sociodemographic information from census data. The objective of this study was to ascertain whether ADI is associated with stage of human papillomavirus (HPV)-related cancer at diagnosis. METHODS: We tested for the association between the stage of HPV-related cancer presentation and ADI as well as the association between stage and the value of each census-based measure using ordered logistic regression, adjusting for age, race and sex. RESULTS: Among 3247 cases of HPV-related cancers presenting to an urban academic medical center, the average age at diagnosis was 57. The average stage at diagnosis was Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Stage 3. In the study population, 43% of patients were female and 87% were white. In this study population, there was no association between stage of HPV-related cancer presentation and either aggregate or individual census variables. CONCLUSIONS: These results may reflect insufficient sample size, a lack of socio-demographic diversity in our population, or suggest that simplifying social determinants of health into a single geocoded index is not a reliable surrogate for assessing a patient's risk for HPV-related cancer.

Adapting a conceptual framework to engage diverse stakeholders in genomic/precision medicine research.

INTRODUCTION: Genomic/precision medicine offers a remarkable opportunity to improve health and address health disparities. Genomic medicine is the study of genes and their interaction with health. Precision medicine is an approach to disease prevention and treatment that considers individual variability in genes, environment and lifestyle. Conclusions from studies lacking diversity may hinder generalizability as genomic variation occurs within and between populations. Historical factors, such as medical mistrust, ethical issues related to decision making, and data sharing pose complex challenges that may further widen inequities in genomic/precision medicine if not appropriately addressed. Although few biomedical studies integrate priorities of community partners into their conceptual framework, effective implementation of genomic/precision medicine research calls for the involvement of diverse stakeholders to expand traditional unidirectional models of engagement in clinical research towards authentic bidirectional collaboration. METHODS: A multipronged approach was used integrating an evidence-based literature review and best practices in developing and evaluating the engagement of diverse stakeholders in genomic and precision medicine research. This was combined with expert consensus building to adapt a conceptual model from a community engagement framework to addressing genomics to be scalable to engagement science, which is challenging to genomic/precision medicine research. RESULTS: The final enhanced conceptual framework is composed of four overarching dimensions now inclusive of domains in trust, exploitation, discrimination, privacy risk, stigmatization, prior harms/injustices, failure to recognize coexisting governments, intersectionality and research transformation. This conceptual framework proposes effective participant research engagement strategies for upstream relationship building, distinct from downstream recruitment strategies in which the goal is enrolment. CONCLUSION: To further shape the evolution of genomic/precision medicine research, it is important to leverage existing partnerships, engage participants beyond recruitment and embrace diverse perspectives. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: In preparation of this manuscript, the perspectives of the community partners on the impact of engaging in genomic/precision medicine research beyond research participation were integrated into this conceptual framework from various guided listening sessions held in diverse communities.

A pilot study of a culturally-appropriate, educational intervention to increase participation in cancer clinical trials among African Americans and Latinos.

AIM: Culturally-appropriate, educational programs are recommended to improve cancer clinical trial participation among African Americans and Latinos. This study investigated the effect of a culturally-appropriate, educational program on knowledge, trust in medical researchers, and intent for clinical trial participation among African Americans and Latinos in Middle Tennessee. METHOD: Trained community health educators delivered a 30-min presentation with video testimonials to 198 participants in 13 town halls. A pre-post survey design was used to evaluate the intervention among 102 participants who completed both pre- and post-surveys one to two weeks after the session. RESULTS: Paired-sample t-test showed significant increases in unadjusted mean scores for knowledge (p < 0.001), trust in medical researchers (p < 0.001), and willingness to participate in clinical trials (p = 0.003) after the town halls in the overall sample. After adjusting for gender and education, all three outcomes remained significant for the overall sample (knowledge: p < 0.001; trust in medical researchers: p < 0.001; willingness: p = 0.001) and for African Americans (knowledge: p < 0.001; trust in medical researchers: p = 0.007; willingness: p = 0.005). However, willingness to participate was no longer significant for Latinos (knowledge: p < 0.001; trust in medical researchers: p = 0.034; willingness: p = 0.084). CONCLUSIONS: The culturally-appropriate, educational program showed promising results for short-term, clinical trial outcomes. Further studies should examine efficacy to improve research participation outcomes.

Design and implementation of a massive open online course on enhancing the recruitment of minorities in clinical trials - Faster Together.

BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic minorities are often underrepresented in clinical trials, threatening the generalizability of trial results. Several factors may contribute to underrepresentation of minorities in clinical trials, including lack of training for researchers and staff on the importance of diversity in clinical trials and effective strategies for recruiting and retaining minority populations. METHODS: Applying community engaged research principles, we developed a massive open online course (MOOC) to help research team members develop knowledge and skills to enhance the recruitment of minorities in clinical trials. A transdisciplinary working group, consisting of clinical researchers, community engagement specialists, minority clinical trial recruitment and retention educators and specialists, and knowledge management information scientists, was formed to develop an evidence-based curriculum. Feedback from the Recruitment Innovation Center Community Advisory Board was incorporated to help finalize the curriculum. The course was implemented in Coursera, an online learning platform offering MOOCs. A bootstrap paired sample t-test was used to compare pre- and post-assessments of knowledge, attitudes, and intentions as it relates to minority recruitment. RESULTS: The final course, entitled Faster Together, was divided into eight 1-h modules. Each module included video presentations, reading assignments, and quizzes. After 10 months, 382 individuals enrolled in the course, 105 participants completed the pre-test, and 14 participants completed the post-test. Participants' knowledge scores were higher with an increase in the mean number of correct answers from 15.4 (95% CI:12.1-18.7) on the pre-test to 18.7 (95% CI:17.42-20.2) on the post-test. All post-test respondents (n = 14) indicated that the course improved their professional knowledge, and 71.4% of respondents indicated that they were very likely to make changes to their recruitment practices. CONCLUSIONS: Faster Together, a massive open online course, is an acceptable, accessible approach to educating research teams on minority recruitment in clinical trials. Preliminary evidence indicates the course increased knowledge on how to recruit minorities into clinical trials and could promote change in their recruitment practices.

Determinants of Trustworthiness to Conduct Medical Research: Findings from Focus Groups Conducted with Racially and Ethnically Diverse Adults.

BACKGROUND: Potential research participants, particularly those from racial and ethnic groups underrepresented in medical research, often decide to participate based on how they judge people, places, and study protocols as trustworthy. And yet, few studies have explored notions of trustworthiness or determinants of trustworthiness from the perspective of potential medical research participants. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes how racially and ethnically diverse potential medical research participants conceptualize what makes researchers, research settings, and research protocols seem trustworthy. DESIGN: Using a criterion sampling strategy, we recruited African American, Latinx, and White adults for participation in focus groups conducted at a community center servings the Latinx community and at a health clinic that primarily serves the African American community. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 57 African American, Latinx, and White adults APPROACH: We conducted seven focus groups that explored perceptions and determinants of research, trust, privacy, confidentiality, and research participation. We used a phenomenological thematic analytic approach to explore the determinants of trustworthiness to conduct medical research. RESULTS: In our effort to identify the factors that affect potential research participants' perspectives on the trustworthiness of medical research, we found three themes: Who is trustworthy to conduct medical research? What influences perceptions of trustworthiness in medical research? And what institutions or settings are trustworthy to conduct medical research? CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight that one's willingness to participate in research is driven in part by their perception of the trustworthiness of researchers, research institutions, and the information they are given about potential research opportunities. There are important and modifiable determinants of trustworthiness that may facilitate minority participation in research. We found that research, researchers, and research institutions each have things that can be done to increase trustworthiness and minority participation in research.

Barriers and facilitators to dissemination and adoption of precision medicine among Hispanics/Latinos.

BACKGROUND: With the rapid advances in gene technologies in recent years, the potential benefits of precision medicine (PM) may spread unevenly to disadvantaged populations, such as Hispanics/Latinos. The objective of this study was to explore patient-level barriers and facilitators to dissemination and adoption of PM among Hispanics/Latinos, including knowledge and awareness. METHODS: Self-identified Hispanics/Latinos from diverse countries in Latin America (N = 41) participated in the study. Using a cross-sectional observational qualitative research design, six focus groups and a demographic questionnaire were collected in English and Spanish. Qualitative content analysis was utilized to code the transcripts and identify emerging themes. RESULTS: Hispanics/Latinos never heard of and had no knowledge about PM. Barriers to dissemination and adoption of PM included lack of health insurance, financial burden, participants' immigration status, distrust of government, limited English proficiency, low literacy levels, cultural norms, fear about genetic testing results, lack of transportation, newness of PM, and lack of information about PM. Facilitators included family support; information provided in Spanish; use of plain language and graphics; assistance programs for uninsured; trust in physicians, healthcare staff, well-known hospitals, academic institutions, and health care providers and community organization as sources of reliable information; personal motivation, and altruism or societal benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Culturally-and linguistically-tailored, low-literacy educational material about PM should be created in English and Spanish. Future research should examine provider-level and system-level barriers and facilitators to implementation and adoption of PM among Hispanic/Latino patients.

Formative research to design a culturally-appropriate cancer clinical trial education program to increase participation of African American and Latino communities.

BACKGROUND: Addressing knowledge deficiencies about cancer clinical trials and biospecimen donation can potentially improve participation among racial and ethnic minorities. This paper describes the formative research process used to design a culturally-appropriate cancer clinical trials education program for African American and Latino communities. We characterized community member feedback and its integration into the program. METHODS: We incorporated three engagement approaches into the formative research process to iteratively develop the program: including community-based organization (CBO) leaders as research team members, conducting focus groups and cognitive interviews with community members as reviewers/consultants, and interacting with two community advisory groups. An iterative-deductive approach was used to analyze focus group data. Qualitative data from advisory groups and community members were compiled and used to finalize the program. RESULTS: Focus group themes were: 1) Community Perspectives on Overall Presentation; 2) Community Opinions and Questions on the Content of the Presentation; 3) Culturally Specific Issues to Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials; 4) Barriers to Clinical Trial Participation; and 5) Perspectives of Community Health Educators. Feedback was documented during reviews by scientific experts and community members with suggestions to ensure cultural appropriateness using peripheral, evidential, linguistic, sociocultural strategies, and constituent-involving. The final program consisted of two versions (English and Spanish) of a culturally-appropriate slide presentation with speaker notes and videos representing community member and researcher testimonials. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating multiple community engagement approaches into formative research processes can facilitate the inclusion of multiple community perspectives and enhance the cultural-appropriateness of the programs designed to promote cancer clinical trial participation among African Americans and Latinos.

Equitable Pandemic Preparedness and Rapid Response: Lessons from COVID-19 for Pandemic Health Equity.

The novel coronavirus pandemic has set in high relief the entrenched health, social, racial, political, and economic inequities within American society as the incidence of severe morbidity and mortality from the disease caused by the virus appears to be much greater in black and other racial/ethnic minority populations, within homeless and incarcerated populations, and in lower-income communities in general. The reality is that the United States is ill equipped to realize health equity in prevention and control efforts for any type of health outcome, including an infectious disease pandemic. In this article, the authors address an important question: When new waves of the current pandemic emerge, or another novel pandemic emerges, how can the United States be better prepared and also ensure a rapid response that reduces rather than exacerbates social and health inequities? The authors argue for a health equity framework to pandemic preparedness that is grounded in meaningful community engagement and that, while recognizing the fundamental causes of social and health inequity, has a clear focus on upstream and midstream preparedness and downstream rapid response efforts that put social and health equity at the forefront.

Association of Health Literacy and Numeracy with Interest in Research Participation.

BACKGROUND: There is much attention to recruitment of diverse populations in research, but little is known about the influence of health literacy and numeracy skills. OBJECTIVE: To determine if health literacy and numeracy affect individuals' interest to participate in research studies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey data were pooled from 3 large studies conducted in the Mid-South Clinical Data Research Network. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients enrolled in 1 of 3 Mid-South Clinical Data Research Network studies. MAIN MEASURES: The survey domains included demographic items, the 3-item Brief Health Literacy Screen (range 3-15), and the 3-item Subjective Numeracy Scale (range 3-18). The outcome was a sum index measure of a 7-item instrument (range 7-21) assessing individuals' interest in participating in different types of research, including research that involves taking surveys, giving a blood sample, participating via phone or internet, taking an investigational medication, meeting at a local community center or school, including family, or staying overnight at a hospital. KEY RESULTS: Respondents (N = 15,973) were predominately women (65.5%), White (81.4%), and middle aged (M = 52.8 years, SD = 16.5); 32.4% previously participated in research. Self-reported health literacy was relatively high (M = 13.5 out of 15, SD = 2.1), and subjective numeracy skills were somewhat lower (M = 14.3 out of 18, SD = 3.6). After adjustment for age, gender, race, income, education, and other characteristics, lower health literacy and numeracy skills were each independently associated with less interest in research participation (p < 0.001 for each). Prior research participation was associated with greater interest in future research participation (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for factors known to be predictive of interest, individuals with lower health literacy or numeracy scores were less interested in participating in research. Additional work is needed to elucidate reasons for this finding and to determine strategies to engage these populations.

Group Versus Individual Educational Sessions With a Promotora and Hispanic/Latina Women's Satisfaction With Care in the Screening Mammography Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE. We studied Hispanic/Latina women's satisfaction with care after receiving group or individual educational sessions (vs standard of care) with a promotora before screening mammography. A promotora is a culturally appropriate community health worker for the Hispanic/Latino community. Promotoras have been shown to increase screening mammography rates and follow-up of abnormal mammograms in this population. However, a promotora's impact on elements of patient care and patient satisfaction remains poorly described. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Hispanic/Latina women 40-64 years old were randomized to one of three groups: the control group (standard-of-care well woman screening), an individual educational session with a promotora followed by well woman screening with access to the promotora, or a group educational session followed by well woman screening with access to the promotora. Access to the promotora included the opportunity to ask questions during well woman screening and a follow-up telephone call to discuss results and follow-up if necessary. Participants completed a premammography survey that assessed demographics and health literacy and a postmammography survey that assessed satisfaction with care, interpersonal processes of care, and satisfaction with the promotora. We used multivariable linear regression models and two-sample t tests for continuous outcome measures and a multivariable logistic regression model for dichotomized outcomes. RESULTS. Of the 100 women enrolled in the study, 94 completed well woman screening and the postmammography survey. Hispanic/Latina women with access to the promotora providing educational sessions in either the group (mean satisfaction with care score, 78.1) or individual (mean satisfaction with care score, 78.8) setting reported higher satisfaction with care than those receiving the standard of care (mean satisfaction with care score, 74.9) (p < 0.05). The odds of highly compassionate care in women receiving educational sessions was increased and was particularly strong for those receiving individual educational sessions compared with standard of care (odds ratio, 4.78 [95% CI, 1.51-15.13]). We found that increased satisfaction with the promotora was significantly associated with increased satisfaction with care but that group versus individual educational sessions did not significantly impact satisfaction with the promotora. CONCLUSION. Our study findings have important implications as patient navigators and shared decision making become integral to cancer screening. Group educational sessions may offer a method to decrease the time and expense of providing educational services in the cancer screening setting. However, the overall more positive interpersonal experiences suggested in the individual setting suggest that a larger study is warranted to better understand differences between group and individual educational settings.