Comparing Perceptions and Decisional Conflict Towards Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials Among African American Patients Who Have and Have Not Participated.

Despite efforts to increase the diversity of cancer clinical trial participants, African Americans are still underrepresented. While perceptions of participation have been studied, the objective of this study was to compare perceptions and decisional conflict towards clinical trials among African American cancer patients who have and have not participated in clinical trials to identify key areas for intervention. Post hoc analysis also looked at whether they had been asked to participate and how that group differed from those who did. Forty-one African American cancer patients were surveyed at two urban cancer centers and asked to agree/disagree to statements related to clinical trials perceptions (facilitators, barriers, beliefs, values, support, and helpfulness), and complete the O'Connor Decisional Conflict Scale. Independent-samples t tests compared participants by clinical trials participation status; 41% had participated in a clinical trial. Results revealed significant perceptual differences among the groups in three main areas: helpfulness of clinical trials, facilitators to participate in clinical trials, and barriers to participating in clinical trials. Post hoc analysis indicated that those who were not asked about clinical trials and had not participated differed significantly in all areas compared with participants. Additionally, clinical trial participants reported significantly lower decisional conflict in most items compared with both those who had and had not be asked to participate. These differences can give practitioners clues as to how to bridge the gap from non-participator to participator. Messages could then be infused in the clinician-patient dyad when introducing and discussing clinical trials, potentially providing a more effective strategy for communicating with African American patients.

Using theory and user-centered design in digital health: The development of the mychoice communication tool to prepare patients and improve informed decision making regarding clinical trial participation.

OBJECTIVE: Designing salient digital health interventions requires theoretically-based formative research and user-center design with stakeholder input throughout impacting content and technology design. mychoice is a theory-based, stakeholder-guided digital health tool to improve clinical trial informed decision making, particularly among African American patients. METHODS: mychoice was developed by (1) mixed-methods formative research, including in-depth interviews (n=16) and surveys (N=41) with African American cancer patients who had and had not participated in a clinical trial; (2) e-tool design process including perceptual mapping analysis to prioritize messages, multi-disciplinary team and stakeholder input; and (3) iterative production and user testing. RESULTS: Interview findings showed that clinical trial participants expressed more positive attributes about and an openness to consider clinical trials, even though they expressed common concerns such as "fear of being a guinea pig". Survey results indicated that clinical trial participants expressed they had been given information to make the decision (P = .001), while those who had not more frequently reported (P > .001) that no one had talked to them about trials. Perceptual mapping indicated that values such as "helping find a cure" or "value to society" had little resonance to those who had not participated, providing message strategy for prototype development. User testing of the tool resulted in modifications; the most significant was the adaptation to a multi-cultural version. CONCLUSIONS: With the promise of digital health interventions, theory-guided, user-centered and best practice development is critical and mychoice serves as an example of the application of these principles.

Together We Go Farther: Improving Access to Cancer Screening Through a Multidisciplinary, One-Stop-Shop Approach.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Despite significant scientific advances in cancer treatment in recent decades, Black Americans still face marked inequities in cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Redressing these persistent inequities will require innovative strategies for community engagement. Radiologists, as experts in cancer screening and diagnosis for multiple malignancies, including breast, lung, and colon, are ideally suited to lead and implement community-based strategies to address local cancer disparities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Through an established academic-community partnership in West Philadelphia built over the course of multiple prior community healthcare events, the authors piloted a novel radiology-led multidisciplinary approach to improve access to cancer screening for the predominantly Black, medically-underserved residents. Using a "one-stop-shop" framework to provide a comprehensive suite of screening and ancillary services in the heart of the community, the authors sought to remove as many impediments to screening as possible. RESULTS: Approximately 350 participants attended the health fair, and a total of 232 screening tests or assessments were completed. Data from this event suggest that this inclusive approach, as well as the use of a health fair "passport" to incentivize engagement, can successfully improve access to screening and follow-up in an underserved community. CONCLUSION: This "one-stop-shop" community approach can be replicated by radiology-led teams in other settings as a high-value, scalable opportunity to reduce disparities in access to cancer screening.