Promoting equity in clinical research: The role of social determinants of health.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the association between social determinants of health (SDoH) and clinical research recruitment outcomes and recommends evidence-based strategies to enhance equity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from the internal clinical study manager database, clinical data warehouse, and clinical research registry. Study characteristics (e.g., study phase) and sociodemographic information were extracted. Median neighborhood income, distance from the study location, and Area Deprivation Index (ADI) were calculated. Mixed effect generalized regression was used for clustering effects and false discovery rate adjustment for multiple testing. A stratified analysis was performed to examine the impact in distinct medical departments. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 3,962 individuals, with a mean age of 61.5 years, 53.6 % male, 54.2 % White, and 49.1 % non-Hispanic or Latino. Study characteristics revealed a variety of protocols across different departments, with cardiology having the highest percentage of participants (46.4 %). Industry funding was the most common (74.5 %), and digital advertising and personal outreach were the main recruitment methods (58.9 % and 90.8 %). DISCUSSION: The analysis demonstrated significant associations between participant characteristics and research participation, including biological sex, age, ethnicity, and language. The stratified analysis revealed other significant associations for recruitment strategies. SDoH is crucial to clinical research recruitment, and this study presents evidence-based solutions for equity and inclusivity. Researchers can tailor recruitment strategies to overcome barriers and increase participant diversity by identifying participant characteristics and research involvement status. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight the relevance of clinical research inequities and equitable representation of historically underrepresented populations. We need to improve recruitment strategies to promote diversity and inclusivity in research.

Uncovering key clinical trial features influencing recruitment.

Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCT) are the foundation for medical advances, but participant recruitment remains a persistent barrier to their success. This retrospective data analysis aims to (1) identify clinical trial features associated with successful participant recruitment measured by accrual percentage and (2) compare the characteristics of the RCTs by assessing the most and least successful recruitment, which are indicated by varying thresholds of accrual percentage such as ≥ 90% vs ≤ 10%, ≥ 80% vs ≤ 20%, and ≥ 70% vs ≤ 30%. Methods: Data from the internal research registry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and Aggregated Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov were collected for 393 randomized interventional treatment studies closed to further enrollment. We compared two regularized linear regression and six tree-based machine learning models for accrual percentage (i.e., reported accrual to date divided by the target accrual) prediction. The outperforming model and Tree SHapley Additive exPlanations were used for feature importance analysis for participant recruitment. The identified features were compared between the two subgroups. Results: CatBoost regressor outperformed the others. Key features positively associated with recruitment success, as measured by accrual percentage, include government funding and compensation. Meanwhile, cancer research and non-conventional recruitment methods (e.g., websites) are negatively associated with recruitment success. Statistically significant subgroup differences (corrected p-value < .05) were found in 15 of the top 30 most important features. Conclusion: This multi-source retrospective study highlighted key features influencing RCT participant recruitment, offering actionable steps for improvement, including flexible recruitment infrastructure and appropriate participant compensation.

Principal Investigators' Perceptions on Factors Associated with Successful Recruitment in Clinical Trials.

Participant recruitment continues to be a challenge to the success of randomized controlled trials, resulting in increased costs, extended trial timelines and delayed treatment availability. Literature provides evidence that study design features (e.g., trial phase, study site involvement) and trial sponsor are significantly associated with recruitment success. Principal investigators oversee the conduct of clinical trials, including recruitment. Through a cross-sectional survey and a thematic analysis of free-text responses, we assessed the perceptions of sixteen principal investigators regarding success factors for participant recruitment. Study site involvement and funding source do not necessarily make recruitment easier or more challenging from the perspective of the principal investigators. The most commonly used recruitment strategies are also the most effort inefficient (e.g., in-person recruitment, reviewing the electronic medical records for prescreening). Finally, we recommended actionable steps, such as improving staff support and leveraging informatics-driven approaches, to allow clinical researchers to enhance participant recruitment.

Managing Human Subjects Research During a Global Pandemic at an Academic Center: Lessons Learned From COVID-19.

By March 2020, New York City became the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Consequently, Columbia University, with its large portfolio of human subjects research, had to address the challenges of protecting thousands of research participants and research staff from potential exposure to COVID-19 while facilitating essential biomedical research, especially pandemic-related studies. The authors describe, from the perspective of Columbia's research administration leadership, how the University and its primary teaching hospital ramped down-and later ramped up-human subjects research and reflect on lessons learned. As the pandemic unfolded, only studies offering the prospect of direct benefit to subjects were permitted to continue with in-person contact. New in-person participant enrollment ceased, except for COVID-19 prevention or treatment studies. Centralized, frequently updated communication about policies and procedures was disseminated to the Columbia research community. Procedural efficiencies were rapidly developed and implemented for review and oversight of human subjects research and contractual agreements for clinical trials. More frequent institutional review board meetings and 24-hour support markedly reduced turnaround time for COVID-19 studies, without delaying approvals of non-COVID-19 research. Research administration worked closely with relevant principal federal agencies, whose regulatory flexibility facilitated the efficient implementation of COVID-19-related research. Overall, the ramp-down and ramp-up of the majority of human subjects research, with specified priorities and accelerated processes, worked well. Adjustments were made to handle the increase in administrative tasks, the need to respond rapidly to added oversight responsibilities, and the management of the many new COVID-19-related research protocols. Timely, centralized communication, support for staff needs, prioritization, and collaboration were critical to successful research oversight at a large-scale academic setting in the midst of a pandemic. These perspectives may be useful to academic research centers addressing the current and future pandemics.

A personalized Institutional Review Board Liaison Service: Evaluation over its initial 30 months.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate whether a dedicated Institutional Review Board (IRB) Liaison Service situated at our Institute's central location could provide additional useful staff support to the investigator community for interactions with the IRB at various levels of protocol submission and review. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a period of 2½ years, from January 2015 to June 2017, a total of 501 in-person consultations were performed during office hours, usually 25-30 per month. Most requests concerned new protocol development, IRB policy questions, and strategies for compliance or assistance in addressing IRB comments on returned protocols. We analyzed the results of a user evaluation survey for in-person consults and performed a focused in-depth analysis of the impact of the IRB Liaison Service. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 43%. Results of 215 completed satisfaction surveys were 100% positive. Users were primarily study coordinators and investigators. Of a randomly selected sample of consultations analyzed in-depth for 67 unique protocols, 73% were subsequently approved within 14 days. CONCLUSION: National concerns about IRB-related research delays have led to the re-assessment of IRB review processes at institutional levels. Overall, we have found the Liaison Service to be a popular, useful addition to research support for a meaningful number of researchers, enhancing our already research-friendly environment. We plan to continue the service and the evaluation going forward. We will focus in the next phase on exploring whether the Liaison Service can reduce IRB approval times for protocols using its services and on providing support for the use of single IRBs for multi-site studies. THE FOLLOWING CORE COMPETENCIES ARE ADDRESSED IN THIS ARTICLE: Practice-based learning and improvement.