Understanding willingness and barriers to participate in clinical trials during pregnancy and lactation: findings from a US study.

BACKGROUND: Due to the exclusion of pregnant and lactating people from most clinical trials, there is an incomplete understanding of the risks and benefits of medication use in these populations and therapeutic decision-making is often conducted without adequate evidence. To change this paradigm, it is imperative to understand the perspectives of pregnant and lactating individuals concerning their participation in clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To describe attitudes, perceptions, barriers, and preferences of pregnant and postpartum people in the United States (US) regarding participation in clinical trials and to identify factors influencing participation. METHODS: In November 2022, individuals aged ≥ 18 residing in the US who self-identified as pregnant or pregnant within the last 12 months were invited to complete an online survey about their perspectives regarding clinical trial participation. The survey included questions about demographic characteristics, health history, behaviors, and willingness to participate in clinical trials while pregnant and/or lactating. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to identify predictors of clinical trial participation. RESULTS: Among the 654 respondents, 34.8% and 40.9% reported being likely or extremely likely to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication while pregnant or lactating, respectively; and 24.5% and 41.7% for a new vaccine while pregnant or lactating, respectively. Higher educational attainment (≥ Bachelor's degree) was associated with greater likelihood of clinical trial participation in pregnancy (odds ratio (OR) = 1.50, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.01, 2.25 for medications; OR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.28, 3.12 for vaccines). Chronic medical conditions were associated with a greater likelihood of participation in clinical trials for vaccines during lactation (OR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.07, 2.36). The most cited motivator for participation in a clinical trial while pregnant or lactating was anticipated personal medical benefit (85.8% and 75.6%, respectively), while the primary deterrent was possible risk to the fetus or baby (97.9% and 97.2%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Willingness of a US sample to participate in clinical trials while pregnant or lactating varied by demographics and health status, with safety to the fetus being a nearly universal concern. These findings have implications for enhancing inclusion of pregnant and lactating people in clinical research and developing effective and equitable recruitment strategies.

The relationship between trust in federal oversight of vaccine safety and willingness to participate in COVID-19 clinical trials: a repeated measures study of Philadelphia residents (September 2021 - March 2023).

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic precipitated an urgent need for clinical trials to discover safe and efficacious treatments. We examined how COVID-19 experiences, clinical trial awareness, and trust in the vaccine safety process were associated with willingness to participate in COVID-19 clinical trials. The objective was to investigate the relationship between trust in federal oversight of vaccine safety and willingness to participate in clinical trials for COVID-19 treatment across four distinct time points over an 18-month period during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used four waves of data collected from September 2021 to March 2023 among 582 Philadelphia residents (with a missing data rate of 0.9%). Generalized estimating equations estimated the association between willingness to participate in COVID-19 clinical trials and participants' trust in the federal government's oversight of COVID-19 vaccine safety, COVID-19-related variables (COVID-19 related health challenges, history of COVID-19 infection), awareness of clinical trials and how to enroll in them, and sociodemographic characteristics (age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, parental status, education, and insurance). RESULTS: On average, willingness to participate in a COVID-19 clinical trial was positively associated with greater trust in the federal government's oversight of vaccine safety [ß = 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.15-0.53], having COVID-19 (ß = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.08-0.73), awareness of clinical trials (ß = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.04-0.73), and knowledge of how to enroll (ß = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.44-1.23). Among sociodemographic characteristics, race/ethnicity (p = 0.001) and gender (p = 0.018) were identified as predictors for COVID-19 trial willingness. CONCLUSION: Willingness to participate in clinical trials may be bolstered by strengthening the public's trust in the federal government's role within vaccine safety oversight, increasing the perceived relevance of clinical trials to individuals' health and well-being, and offering tailored information to educate diverse communities about ongoing trials and how to enroll in them.

Promoting informed approaches in precision oncology and clinical trial participation for Black patients with cancer: Community-engaged development and pilot testing of a digital intervention.

BACKGROUND: Black patients with cancer are less likely to receive precision cancer treatments than White patients and are underrepresented in clinical trials. To address these disparities, the study aimed to develop and pilot-test a digital intervention to improve Black patients' knowledge about precision oncology and clinical trials, empower patients to increase relevant discussion, and promote informed decision-making. METHODS: A community-engaged approach, including a Community Advisory Board and two rounds of key informant interviews with Black patients with cancer, their relatives, and providers (n = 48) was used to develop and refine the multimedia digital intervention. Thematic analysis was conducted for qualitative data. The intervention was then pilot-tested with 30 Black patients with cancer to assess feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, knowledge, decision self-efficacy, and patient empowerment; Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test was used to analyze quantitative data. RESULTS: The digital tool was found to be feasible, acceptable, and culturally appropriate. Key informants shared their preferences and recommendations for the digital intervention and helped improve cultural appropriateness through user and usability testing. In the pilot test, appreciable improvement was found in participants' knowledge about precision oncology (z = -2.04, p = .052), knowledge about clinical trials (z = -3.14, p = .001), and decisional self-efficacy for targeted/immune therapy (z = -1.96, p = .0495). CONCLUSIONS: The digital intervention could be a promising interactive decision-support tool for increasing Black patients' participation in clinical trials and receipt of precision treatments, including immunotherapy. Its use in clinical practice may reduce disparities in oncology care and research. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: We developed a digital interactive decision support tool for Black patients with cancer by convening a Community Advisory Board and conducting interviews with Black patients with cancer, their relatives, and providers. We then pilot-tested the intervention with newly diagnosed Black patients with cancer and found appreciable improvement in participants' knowledge about precision oncology, knowledge about clinical trials, and confidence in making decisions for targeted/immune therapy. Our digital tool has great potential to be an affordable and scalable solution for empowering and educating Black patients with cancer to help them make informed decisions about precision oncology and clinical trials and ultimately reducing racial disparities.

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

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials remain a critical component of medical innovation. Evidence suggests that individuals' political ideologies may impact their health behaviors. However, there is a paucity of literature examining the relationship between political ideologies and clinical trial knowledge and participation. METHODS: Study data were derived from Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 4 (n = 3300), which was conducted from February to June 2020. We used participants' characteristics to estimate the prevalence of clinical trial knowledge and participation. We used multivariable logistic regressions to investigate whether political ideology had a significant impact on clinical trial knowledge and participation. Jack-knife replicate weights were applied for population-level estimates. RESULTS: Most participants were White (64.2%), earned above US$50,000 (62.4%), and lived in urban areas (88.0%). About 59.2% reported having some knowledge of clinical trials, and only 8.9% had ever been invited to participate in clinical trials. A total of 37.0%, 29.5%, and 33.5% of the population endorsed moderate, liberal, and conservative political viewpoints respectively. In the adjusted logistic regression analysis, compared to conservatives, liberals (adjusted odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.80) and moderates (adjusted odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.88) had significantly greater odds of having knowledge of clinical trials. Also, liberals had higher odds of receiving invitations to participate in clinical trials (odds ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.85; p = 0.023) and greater odds of trial participation (odds ratio, 3.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-10.33; p = 0.007) compared to moderates. CONCLUSIONS: The mechanism underlying the higher rates of clinical trial invitations to liberals is unclear and requires further comprehensive investigation. Similarly, further qualitative studies are needed to understand the attributes that promote knowledge and increased likelihood of clinical trial participation among liberals. This will provide crucial insight to help design interventions that further involve conservatives and moderates in clinical trials and scientific enterprise.

Trusting relationships between patients with non-curative cancer and healthcare professionals create ethical obstacles for informed consent in clinical trials: a grounded theory study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial participation for patients with non-curative cancer is unlikely to present personal clinical benefit, which raises the bar for informed consent. Previous work demonstrates that decisions by patients in this setting are made within a 'trusting relationship' with healthcare professionals. The current study aimed to further illuminate the nuances of this relationship from both the patients' and healthcare professionals' perspectives. METHODS: Face-to-face interviews using a grounded theory approach were conducted at a regional Cancer Centre in the United Kingdom. Interviews were performed with 34 participants (patients with non-curative cancer, number (n) = 16; healthcare professionals involved in the consent process, n = 18). Data analysis was performed after each interview using open, selective, and theoretical coding. RESULTS: The 'Trusting relationship' with healthcare professionals underpinned patient motivation to participate, with many patients 'feeling lucky' and articulating an unrealistic hope that a clinical trial could provide a cure. Patients adopted the attitude of 'What the doctor thinks is best' and placed significant trust in healthcare professionals, focusing on mainly positive aspects of the information provided. Healthcare professionals recognised that trial information was not received neutrally by patients, with some expressing concerns that patients would consent to 'please' them. This raises the question: Within the trusting relationship between patients and healthcare professionals, 'Is it possible to provide balanced information?'. The theoretical model identified in this study is central to understanding how the trusting professional-patient relationship influences the decision-making process. CONCLUSION: The significant trust placed on healthcare professionals by patients presented an obstacle to delivering balanced trial information, with patients sometimes participating to please the 'experts'. In this high-stakes scenario, it may be pertinent to consider strategies, such as separation of the clinician-researcher roles and enabling patients to articulate their care priorities and preferences within the informed consent process. Further research is needed to expand on these ethical conundrums and ensure patient choice and autonomy in trial participation are prioritised, particularly when the patient's life is limited.

Racial disparities in Black men with prostate cancer: A literature review.

Black men are disproportionately affected by prostate cancer (PCa), with earlier presentation, more aggressive disease, and higher mortality rates versus White men. Furthermore, Black men have less access to PCa treatment and experience longer delays between diagnosis and treatment. In this review, the authors discuss the factors contributing to racial disparities and present solutions to improve access to care and increase clinical trial participation among Black men with PCa. Racial disparities observed among Black men with PCa are multifaceted, evolving from institutional racism. Cultural factors include generalized mistrust of the health care system, poor physician-patient communication, lack of information on PCa and treatment options, fear of PCa diagnosis, and perceived societal stigma of the disease. In the United States, geographic trends in racial disparities have been observed. Economic factors, e.g., cost of care, recovery time, and cancer debt, play an important role in racial disparities observed in PCa treatment and outcomes. Racial diversity is often lacking in genomic and precision medicine studies. Black men are largely underrepresented in key phase 3 PCa trials and may be less willing to enroll in clinical trials due to lack of awareness, lack of diversity in clinical trial research teams, and bias of health care providers to recommend clinical research. The authors propose solutions to address these factors that include educating clinicians and institutions on the barriers Black men experience, increasing the diversity of health care providers and clinical research teams, and empowering Black men to be involved in their treatment, which are keys to creating equity for Black men with PCa. LAY SUMMARY: Prostate cancer negatively affects Black men more than men of other races. The history of segregation and mistreatment in the health care system may contribute to mistrust among Black men. Outcomes are worse for Black men because they are less likely to be screened or to receive treatment for prostate cancer. Black men also are unlikely to participate in clinical research, making it difficult for investigators to understand how Black men are affected by prostate cancer. Suggestions for addressing these differences include teaching physicians and nurses about the issues Black men experience getting treatment and improving how Black men get information on prostate cancer.

Enrollment of adolescent and young adult patients newly diagnosed with cancer in NCI CTEP-sponsored clinical trials before and after launch of the NCI National Clinical Trials Network.

BACKGROUND: Participation of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) in oncology clinical trials is important to ensure adequate opportunities for AYA patients to contribute to, and benefit from, advances in cancer treatment. METHODS: Accrual data for National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) cooperative group-led treatment trials were examined to assess enrollment of newly diagnosed AYA patients (15-39 years) during the period 2004-2019, with particular interest in comparing enrollment before launch of the NCI National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) to after. All phase 2, 2/3, and 3 trials activated during the period between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2019, were identified (n = 1568) and reduced to a set of 304 that met predetermined criteria to focus on cooperative group-led trials that involved therapy for newly diagnosed cancer and had age eligibility overlapping the AYA range. The proportion of AYA patients relative to total accrual, along with 95% bootstrapped CI was calculated for patients enrolled pre-NCTN and post-NCTN. RESULTS: AYA accrual comprised 9.5% (95% CI, 7.6-11.8) pre-NCTN compared with 14.0% (95% CI, 9.9-18.3) post-NCTN. The mean difference in proportions post-NCTN compared with pre-NCTN was 4.4% (0.7%-8.3%). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate an increase in AYA participation in trials conducted within the NCTN relative to the pre-NCTN period. This suggests an awareness and utilization of NCTN trials for AYAs with cancer.

How is Clinical Trial Reimbursement Money Spent? South African Trial Participants' Reported Reimbursement Spending Patterns and Perceptions of Appropriate Reimbursement Amounts.

Reimbursement of participants in clinical trials is extensively debated. Guidance recommends that compensation should reflect time, inconvenience and reimbursement of expenses. This study describes how participants spend their reimbursement and perceptions of appropriate reimbursement amounts. This was a sub-study of the evidence for contraceptive options and HIV outcomes (ECHO) trial. Participants were from two sites in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. A mixed methods approach was used. 500 participants completed a questionnaire, and 32 participated in one of four focus group discussions (FGD). The majority (81%) used reimbursement for transport to the research site, followed by toiletry purchases (64%). Many described how reimbursement supplemented income, used to cover basic living costs. Some used money to buy luxury items and takeaway foods. The ideal reimbursement amount per visit ranged: ZAR150-ZAR340 (US$10-24). Reimbursement spending and perceptions are in line with local guidance. Reimbursement should consider risk minimization together with ensuring informed, voluntary decision making.

Demographic and Socioeconomic Disparities Among Cancer Survivors in Clinical Trials Participation, USA, 2016-2018.

The established findings of lower representation of minority population in clinical trials are skewed by the national representation of the US population by race where they account only for 30%, making it difficult to compare the participation rate by race. We report the direct age-adjusted demographic and socioeconomic disparities in clinical trial participation among cancer survivors using the most recent national survey data. In 2018, 7.1% of cancer survivors reported participating in the clinical trial as a part of their cancer treatment. The participation rate was significantly higher among younger adults (age 18-24, 19.1%), male (8.5%), black (19.8%), and Hispanic (14.4%) cancer survivors, while rate was lower among female (4.2%), and white (5.4%). By marital status, 8.5% of unmarried and 3.5% of married cancer survivors reported clinical trial participation. These results help explain the demographic disparities in cancer survivors and drawing attention to targeted education and awareness intervention for ideal cancer care.

Translation and validation of the greek version of a questionnaire measuring patient views on participation in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The increasing number of clinical research opportunities requires increasing numbers of participants in clinical trials. However, it may become increasingly problematic, as protocols have become increasingly complex. Better understanding of patients' attitudes towards their potential participation in clinical trials is essential for developing effective clinical trial recruitment strategies. In Greece, limited research has been conducted on this topic so far. This study aims to contribute to filling this gap. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted. Purposive sampling was used to select participants. The Greek version of a recently developed questionnaire measuring patient views on participation in clinical trials, a 27-item scale distributed into four factors, was tested. In addition, participants were asked to provide information regarding their socio-demographics. A demographic comparison was conducted. RESULTS: The four-factor solution derived in our study consisted of the same 27 items and it was different from the six-factor solution that Arnetz et al. proposed. The factors risks and benefits, that consisted of 5 and 3 items respectively in the six-factor solution, were merged into one factor that consisted of 10 items in the four-factor solution. The four factors produced were Risks and benefits (ten items, α = 0,867), Patient's expectations (six items, α = 0.864), Patient's participation (five items, α = 0.827), and Cost and convenience (five items, α = 0,770). We found that demographic factors did not impact patients' opinions about clinical trials participation, except for gender. The participants reported as important for participating in clinical trial: receiving clear and adequate information (95,5 %) and being given the opportunity to ask questions (97,8 %), take part in discussions regarding their own treatment (94,6 %), and voice their concerns and opinions (91,1 %). As factors strongly associated with participants' willingness to participate in a clinical trial were reported: concerns about the risks of being in a clinical trial (87,5 %), the possible side effects of clinical trials (86,3 %), the type of treatment given in a clinical trial (83,7 %), and whether participation would improve their quality of life (QoL) (81,5 %). CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary validation of the Greek version of the questionnaire measuring patient perceptions and expectations of participating in clinical trials demonstrated acceptable validity and reliability and could be further tested in larger samples. The findings that emerged from this study are in line with previous literature.

Lay persons' perception of the requirements for research in emergency obstetric and newborn care.

BACKGROUND: Factors that could potentially act as facilitators and barriers to successful recruitment strategies in perinatal clinical trials are not well documented. The objective was to assess lay persons' understanding of the informed consent for randomized clinical trial in emergency obstetric and newborn care. METHODS: This was a qualitative study conducted among survivors of severe obstetric complications who were attending the post-natal clinic of Kawempe National Referral Hospital, Uganda, 6-8 weeks after surviving severe obstetric complications during pregnancy or childbirth. The study that involved 18 in-depth interviews was conducted from June 1, 2019 to July 6, 2019. The issues explored included perceptions of the purpose and necessity to conduct such research how research-related information would be disclosed, and what could be the potential benefits and risks of participation. The data was analyzed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: Respondents felt that research was necessary to investigate the cause, prevention or complications of an illness, especially as much was known about some pregnancy and newborn complications. Most believed that the emergency contexts affects whether and what prospective participants may understand if information about research was disclosed. Whereas they did not see the value of procedures like randomization, they felt that if these and any other procedures necessary should be done transparently and fairly. The decisions to participate would significantly be influenced by possibility of risk to the unborn baby or the newborn. Solidarity was an important influence on decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents valued participation in RCTs in emergency obstetric and newborn care. However, they expressed concerns and valued openness, transparency and accountability with regard to how clinical trials information is disclosed and the decision-making process for clinical trial participation. While autonomy and solidarity are contradictory values, they complement each other during decision-making for informed consent.

The effect of participation in neoadjuvant clinical trials on outcomes in patients with early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials can offer novel and more advanced and/or novel treatments to cancer patients in advance of them being approved and available for all patients. While several studies have examined the effect of clinical trial participation on prognosis, there has been no clear conclusion from these studies. Therefore, we chose to test the influence of trial participation on pathological complete response (pCR) and mastectomy rates after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: In this retrospective study, all patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy from 2001 to 2014 were selected. A total of 1038 patients with complete treatment, patient, and tumor characteristics were included. A total of 260 of those were treated in clinical trials. We examined whether study participation status in addition to commonly known predictors for pCR improves prediction of pCR. Similar analyses were conducted for the mastectomy rate outcome measure. Finally, survival analyses were also conducted as part of an exploratory analysis. RESULTS: Study participation was an independent predictor of pCR in addition to commonly known predictors. Adjusted odds ratio (OR) for trial participants versus non-participants was 1.53 (95% CI 1.03-2.28). Additionally, study participation improved the prediction of mastectomy risk. The adjusted OR for trial participants versus non-participants was 0.62 (95% CI 0.42-0.90). Subgroup-specific differences concerning the impact of study participation could not be shown for either pCR or mastectomy rate. Survival comparisons could not be conducted due to large differences in follow-up data in patients participating in clinical trials versus those who did not participate; however, pCR was a predictor of prognosis in both groups. CONCLUSION: Patients taking part in neoadjuvant chemotherapy clinical trials have a higher pCR rate and a lower mastectomy risk than patients not participating in clinical trials for their cancer care. This finding is a supporting factor for trial participation in neoadjuvant chemotherapy trials.

Association of clinical trial enrollment and survival using contemporary therapy for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

While early studies reported superior survival for cancer patients enrolled on clinical trials, recent findings are inconclusive. We investigated the association between enrollment on contemporary trials and event-free survival (EFS) in pediatric B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). In a retrospective cohort of 274 children (1-21 years) treated for B-ALL from 2008 to 2015, 55.5% enrolled with no disparity in enrollment by age, sex, or ethnicity. Three-year EFS was similar for enrolled and not enrolled patients (90.1% [95% CI, 82.5-94.5] versus 86.5% [95% CI, 77.7-92.0]). Clinical trial enrollment did not affect pediatric B-ALL survival, albeit in a limited-size cohort treated at a single academic institution.

Perceptions of Cancer Care and Clinical Trials in the Black Community: Implications for Care Coordination Between Oncology and Primary Care Teams.

BACKGROUND: Despite efforts to ameliorate disparities in cancer care and clinical trials, barriers persist. As part of a multiphase community-engaged assessment, an exploratory community-engaged research partnership, forged between an academic hospital and a community-based organization, set out to explore perceptions of cancer care and cancer clinical trials by black Bostonians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Key informant interviews with health care providers and patient advocates in community health centers (CHCs), organizers from grassroots coalitions focused on cancer, informed the development of a focus group protocol. Six focus groups were conducted with black residents in Boston, including groups of cancer survivors and family members. Transcripts were coded thematically and a code-based report was generated and analyzed by community and academic stakeholders. RESULTS: While some participants identified clinical trials as beneficial, overall perceptions conjured feelings of fear and exploitation. Participants describe barriers to clinical trial participation in the context of cancer care experiences, which included negative interactions with providers and mistrust. Primary care physicians (PCPs) reported being levied as a trusted resource for patients undergoing care, but lamented the absence of a mechanism by which to gain information about cancer care and clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Confusion about cancer care and clinical trials persists, even among individuals who have undergone treatment for cancer. Greater coordination between PCPs and CHC care teams and oncology care teams may improve patient experiences with cancer care, while also serving as a mechanism to disseminate information about treatment options and clinical trials. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Inequities in cancer care and clinical trial participation persist. The findings of this study indicate that greater coordination with primary care physicians (PCPs) and community health center (CHC) providers may be an important step for both improving the quality of cancer care in communities and increasing awareness of clinical trials. However, PCPs and CHCs are often stretched to capacity with caring for their communities. This leaves the oncology community well positioned to create programs to bridge the communication gaps and provide resources necessary to support oncologic care along the cancer continuum, from prevention through survivorship.

Knowledge and Perception about Clinical Research Shapes Behavior: Face to Face Survey in Korean General Public.

Considering general public as potential patients, identifying factors that hinder public participation poses great importance, especially in a research environment where demands for clinical trial participants outpace the supply. Hence, the aim of this study was to evaluate knowledge and perception about clinical research in general public. A total of 400 Seoul residents with no previous experience of clinical trial participation were selected, as representative of population in Seoul in terms of age and sex. To minimize selection bias, every fifth passer-by was invited to interview, and if in a cluster, person on the very right side was asked. To ensure the uniform use of survey, written instructions have been added to the questionnaire. Followed by pilot test in 40 subjects, the survey was administered face-to-face in December 2014. To investigate how perception shapes behavior, we compared perception scores in those who expressed willingness to participate and those who did not. Remarkably higher percentage of responders stated that they have heard of clinical research, and knew someone who participated (both, P < 0.001) compared to India. Yet, the percentage of responders expressed willingness to participate was 39.3%, a significantly lower rate than the result of the India (58.9% vs. 39.3%, P < 0.001). Treatment benefit was the single most influential reason for participation, followed by financial gain. Concern about safety was the main reason for refusal, succeeded by fear and lack of trust. Public awareness and educational programs addressing these negative perceptions and lack of knowledge will be effective in enhancing public engaged in clinical research.

Development and piloting of a decision aid for women considering participation in the Sentinel Node Biopsy versus Axillary Clearance 2 breast cancer trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study aimed to (1) develop a decision aid for women considering participation in the Sentinel Node Biopsy versus Axillary Clearance 2 (SNAC-2) breast cancer surgical trial and (2) obtain evidence on its acceptability, feasibility, and potential efficacy in routine trial clinical practice via a two-stage pilot. METHODS: The decision aid was developed according to International Patient Decision Aid Standards. Study 1: an initial pilot involved 25 members of the consumer advocacy group, Breast Cancer Network Australia. Study 2: the main pilot involved 20 women eligible to participate in the SNAC-2 trial in New Zealand. In both pilots, a questionnaire assessed: information and involvement preferences, decisional conflict, SNAC-2 trial-related understanding and attitudes, psychological distress, and general decision aid feedback. A follow-up telephone interview elicited more detailed feedback on the decision aid design and content. RESULTS: In both pilots, participants indicated good subjective and objective understanding of SNAC-2 trial and reported low decisional conflict and anxiety. The decision aid was found helpful when deciding about trial participation and provided additional, useful information to the standard trial information sheet. CONCLUSION: The development and two-stage piloting process for this decision aid resulted in a resource that women found very acceptable and helpful in assisting decision-making about SNAC-2 trial participation. The process and findings provide a guide for developing other trial decision aids.

Patient participation in clinical trials conducted by principal investigators who speak one or more language(s) beyond english: Exploring ethnicity as proxy for language.

Background: To explore the association between ethnicity, as a proxy for language, and participation in clinical trials (CT) conducted by Principal Investigators (PI) who speak one or more language in addition to English. Methods: This retrospective, descriptive study utilized CT participant demographic data extracted from the largest Midwestern non-profit healthcare system between January 1, 2019 and 12/31/2021. The CT participant sample (N = 4308) was divided for comparison: CT Participants of Hispanic or Latino Origin (N = 254; 5.90 %) and CT Participants of Non-Hispanic or Latino Origin (N = 4054; 94.10 %). Logistic regressions were performed to generate the crude and adjusted odds of patients of Hispanic or Latino origin participating in CTs conducted by PIs who speak another language in addition to English. Results: Crude analysis revealed that patients of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity had 2.04 (1.58, 2.64) times greater odds of participating in CTs conducted by PIs who speak another language than English (<0.0001), which increased to 2.67 (1.97, 3.62) times greater odds after adjusting for sex, race, age and insurance (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Overall findings indicate that patients of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, who are more likely to speak Spanish, have greater odds of participating in CTs conducted by PIs who speak another language beyond English. This may imply that cultural sensitivity at the top of a CT study team, as likely to be demonstrated by PIs who speak another language beyond English, may be an important contributor to reducing ethnicity- and language-based barriers to diversity in CTs and a relationship worth exploring further.

A novel approach to assessing disparity in representativeness of clinical trial participants within a large midwestern healthcare system.

Background: Representativeness in clinical trials (CT) serves as a metric of access to healthcare and reflects differences that may determine differential efficacy of medical interventions; thus, quantifying representativeness in CT participation is critical. Methods: This retrospective, descriptive study utilized patient demographic data extracted from the largest Midwestern non-profit healthcare system. Using data between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021, a CT Participant Sample of 4,537 system patients who were active CT participants was compared to a CT Patient Population of 195,726 system patients receiving care by the PI of active CTs, which represented the target population. Chi-square goodness-of-fit tests were used to test differences in distributions of demographic variables between groups, indicating disparity in CT participation. Two metrics adapted from literature - participation incidence disparity (PID) and participation incidence ratio (PIR) - were calculated to quantify absolute and relative disparity in representativeness proportions, respectively. Descriptive approaches to assessing representativeness are also provided. Results: Results showed significant differences by race/ethnicity (χ2 = 50.64; p < 0.0001), age categories (χ2 = 56.64; p < 0.0001), and insurance (χ2 = 41.29; p < 0.0001). PID and PIR metrics revealed reduced CT participation among non-White racial/ethnic groups and increased CT participation among White Non-Hispanic patients. Further, CT participants ≥80 or Worker's Compensation were underrepresented while those with Self-Pay insurance were overrepresented as CT participants. Conclusions: Despite progress, continued efforts to not only enroll participants into CTs that are representative of the healthcare system and region, but also to better assess representativeness quantitatively are still needed.

Evidence-based Prostate Cancer Screening Interventions for Black Men: A Systematic Review.

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of death for men in the U.S. and Black men are twice as likely to die from the disease. However, prostate cancer, if diagnosed at an earlier stage, is curable. The purpose of this review is to identify prostate cancer screening clinical trials that evaluate screening decision-making processes of Black men. METHODS: The databases PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, and PsychInfo were utilized to examine peer-reviewed publications between 2017 and 2023. Data extracted included implementation plans, outcome measures, intervention details, and results of the study. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme was used to assess the quality of the evidence presented. RESULTS: Of the 206 full-text articles assessed, three were included in this review. Educational interventions about prostate cancer knowledge with shared and informed decision-making (IDM) features, as well as counseling, treatment options, and healthcare navigation information, may increase prostate cancer screening participation among Black men. Additionally, health partner educational interventions may not improve IDM related to screening participation. The quality of the evidence presented in each article was valid and potentially impactful to the community. DISCUSSION: Black men face various social determinants of health barriers related to racism, discrimination, cost of health services, time away from work, and lack of trust in the healthcare system when making health-related decisions, including prostate cancer screening participation. A multifactorial intervention approach is required to address these inequities faced by Black men especially as prostate cancer is curable when diagnosed at an earlier stage.