11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Demographic and Health Behavior Factors Associated With Clinical Trial Invitation and Participation in the United States

      research-article
      , DrPH 1 , , , PhD 1 , , CRNP, MS, AOCN 1 , , PhD 1
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What person-level factors are associated with US adults’ invitation to and participation in clinical trials?

          Findings

          In this cross-sectional study of 3689 adults, 9% were invited to participate in a clinical trial, and of those, 47% participated. Respondents had higher odds of clinical trial invitation if they were non-Hispanic Black, college educated, single, or urban-dwelling or had medical conditions; non-Hispanic Black respondents had lower odds of clinical trial participation.

          Meaning

          In this study, clinical trial invitation and participation differed by person-level demographic and clinical characteristics, reinforcing the need for strategies encouraging generalizable and equitable translation of research to practice.

          Abstract

          This cross-sectional study examines demographic, clinical, and health behavior–related factors associated with invitation to and participation in clinical trials in the US.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Representative enrollment in clinical trials is critical to ensure equitable and effective translation of research to practice, yet disparities in clinical trial enrollment persist.

          Objective

          To examine person-level factors associated with invitation to and participation in clinical trials.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This cross-sectional study analyzed responses from 3689 US adults who participated in the nationally representative Health Information National Trends Survey, collected February through June 2020 via mailed questionnaires.

          Exposures

          Demographic, clinical, and health behavior–related characteristics.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          History of invitation to and participation in a clinical trial, primary information sources, trust in information sources, and motives for participation in clinical trials were described. Respondent characteristics are presented as absolute numbers and weighted percentages. Associations between respondent demographic, clinical, and health behavior–related characteristics and clinical trial invitation and participation were estimated using survey-weighted logistic regression models.

          Results

          The median (IQR) age of the 3689 respondents was 48 (33-61) years, and most were non-Hispanic White individuals (2063 [59%]; non-Hispanic Black, 452 [10%]; Hispanic, 521 [14%]), had more than a high school degree (2656 [68%]), were employed (1809 [58%]), and had at least 1 medical condition (2535 [61%]). Overall, 439 respondents (9%) had been invited to participate in any clinical trial. Respondents with increased odds of invitation were non-Hispanic Black compared with non-Hispanic White (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.13-3.02), had greater than a high school education compared with less than high school education (eg, ≥college degree: aOR, 4.84; 95% CI, 1.89-12.39), were single compared with married or living as married (aOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04-2.73), and had at least 1 medical condition compared to none (eg, 1 medical condition: aOR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.32-3.82). Respondents residing in rural vs urban areas had 77% decreased odds of invitation to a clinical trial (aOR 0.33; 95% CI 0.17-0.65). Of invited respondents, 199 (47%) participated. Compared with non-Hispanic White respondents, non-Hispanic Black respondents had 72% decreased odds of clinical trial participation (aOR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.87). Respondents most frequently reported “health care providers” as the first and most trusted source of clinical trial information (first source: 2297 [59%]; most trusted source: 2597 [70%]). The most frequently reported motives for clinical trials participation were “wanting to get better” (2294 [66%]) and the standard of care not being covered by insurance (1448 [41%]).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          The findings of this study suggest that invitation to and participation in clinical trials may differ by person-level demographic and clinical characteristics. Strategies toward increasing trial invitation and participation rates across diverse patient populations warrant further research to ensure equitable translation of clinical benefits from research to practice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A power primer.

          One possible reason for the continued neglect of statistical power analysis in research in the behavioral sciences is the inaccessibility of or difficulty with the standard material. A convenient, although not comprehensive, presentation of required sample sizes is provided here. Effect-size indexes and conventional values for these are given for operationally defined small, medium, and large effects. The sample sizes necessary for .80 power to detect effects at these levels are tabled for eight standard statistical tests: (a) the difference between independent means, (b) the significance of a product-moment correlation, (c) the difference between independent rs, (d) the sign test, (e) the difference between independent proportions, (f) chi-square tests for goodness of fit and contingency tables, (g) one-way analysis of variance, and (h) the significance of a multiple or multiple partial correlation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

            Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover 3 main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors, to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all 3 study designs and 4 are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available at http://www.annals.org and on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Structural competency: Theorizing a new medical engagement with stigma and inequality

              This paper describes a shift in medical education away from pedagogic approaches to stigma and inequalities that emphasize cross-cultural understandings of individual patients, toward attention to forces that influence health outcomes at levels above individual interactions. It reviews existing structural approaches to stigma and health inequalities developed outside of medicine, and proposes changes to U.S. medical education that will infuse clinical training with a structural focus. The approach, termed “structural competency,” consists of training in five core competencies: 1) recognizing the structures that shape clinical interactions; 2) developing an extra-clinical language of structure; 3) rearticulating “cultural” formulations in structural terms; 4) observing and imagining structural interventions; and 5) developing structural humility. Examples are provided of structural health scholarship that should be adopted into medical didactic curricula, and of structural interventions that can provide participant-observation opportunities for clinical trainees. The paper ultimately argues that increasing recognition of the ways in which social and economic forces produce symptoms or methylate genes then needs to be better coupled with medical models for structural change.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                29 September 2021
                September 2021
                29 September 2021
                : 4
                : 9
                : e2127792
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: July 30, 2021.
                Published: September 29, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.27792
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Williams CP et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Courtney P. Williams, DrPH, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Dr, Rockville, MD 20850 ( courtney.williams@ 123456nih.gov ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Williams had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: All authors.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Williams, Senft Everson, Shelburne.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Williams, Norton.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Williams, Senft Everson.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Shelburne.
                Supervision: Senft Everson, Norton.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
                Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the authors are their own and this material should not be interpreted as representing the official viewpoint of the US Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, or the National Cancer Institute.
                Additional Contributions: We would like to acknowledge Jennifer Alvidrez, PhD, David Chambers, DPhil, Andrea Denicoff, RN, MS, ANP, and Holly Massett, PhD, all of the National Institutes of Health, for their thoughtful input on earlier versions of the manuscript. No compensation was provided for their assistance.
                Article
                zoi210806
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.27792
                8482053
                34586365
                454b99f9-5f37-4ea2-b58e-0d67c5e64d22
                Copyright 2021 Williams CP et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 12 April 2021
                : 30 July 2021
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Health Policy

                Comments

                Comment on this article