Dataset Information

Patient income level and cancer clinical trial participation.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Studies have shown an association between socioeconomic status (SES) and quality of oncology care, but less is known about the impact of patient SES on clinical trial participation.

Patients and methods

We assessed clinical trial participation patterns according to important SES (income, education) and demographic factors in a large sample of patients surveyed via an Internet-based treatment decision tool. Logistic regression, conditioning on type of cancer, was used. Attitudes toward clinical trials were assessed using prespecified items about treatment, treatment tolerability, convenience, and cost.

Results

From 2007 to 2011, 5,499 patients were successfully surveyed. Forty percent discussed clinical trials with their physician, 45% of discussions led to physician offers of clinical trial participation, and 51% of offers led to clinical trial participation. The overall clinical trial participation rate was 9%. In univariate models, older patients (P = .002) and patients with lower income (P = .001) and education (P = .02) were less likely to participate in clinical trials. In a multivariable model, income remained a statistically significant predictor of clinical trial participation (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94; P = .01). Even in patients age ? 65 years, who have universal access to Medicare, lower income predicted lower trial participation. Cost concerns were much more evident among lower-income patients (P < .001).

Conclusion

Lower-income patients were less likely to participate in clinical trials, even when considering age group. A better understanding of why income is a barrier may help identify ways to make clinical trials better available to all patients and would increase the generalizability of clinical trial results across all income levels.

SUBMITTER: Unger JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3565180 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient income level and cancer clinical trial participation.

Unger Joseph M JM Hershman Dawn L DL Albain Kathy S KS Moinpour Carol M CM Petersen Judith A JA Burg Kenda K Crowley John J JJ

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 20130107 5

<h4>Purpose</h4>Studies have shown an association between socioeconomic status (SES) and quality of oncology care, but less is known about the impact of patient SES on clinical trial participation.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>We assessed clinical trial participation patterns according to important SES (income, education) and demographic factors in a large sample of patients surveyed via an Internet-based treatment decision tool. Logistic regression, conditioning on type of cancer, was used. Atti ...[more]

PMID: 23295802

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Friends of Cancer Research, and the US Food and Drug Administration recently recommended modernizing criteria related to comorbidities routinely used to exclude patients from cancer clinical trials. The goal was to design clinical trial eligibility such that trial results better reflect real-world cancer patient populations, to improve clinical trial participation, and to increase patient access to new treatments in trials. Yet despite the assumed influence of comorbidities on trial participation, the relationship between patients' comorbidity profile at diagnosis and trial participation has not been explicitly examined using patient-level data.ObjectivesTo investigate the association between comorbidities, clinical trial decision-making, and clinical trial participation; and to estimate the potential impact of reducing comorbidity exclusion criteria on trial participation, to provide a benchmark for changing criteria.Design, setting, and participantsA national survey was embedded within a web-based cancer treatment-decision tool accessible on multiple cancer-oriented websites. Participants must have received a diagnosis of breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer. In total, 5499 surveyed patients who made a treatment decision within the past 3 months were analyzed using logistic regression analysis and simulations.ExposuresCancer diagnosis and 1 or more of 18 comorbidities.Main outcomes and measuresPatient discussion of a clinical trial with their physician (yes vs no); if a trial was discussed, the offer of trial participation (yes vs no); and, if trial participation was offered, trial participation (yes vs no).ResultsOf the 5499 patients who participated in the survey, 3420 (62.6%) were women and 2079 (37.8%) were men (mean [SD] age, 56.63 [10.05] years). Most patients (65.6%; n = 3610) had 1 or more comorbidities. The most common comorbid condition was hypertension (35.0%; n = 1924). Compared with the absence of comorbidities, the presence of 1 or more comorbidities was associated with a decreased risk of trial discussions (44.1% vs 37.2%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.97; P = .02), trial offers (21.7% vs 15.7%; OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96; P = .02), and trial participation (11.3% vs 7.8%; OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.94; P = .01). The removal of the ASCO-recommended comorbidity restrictions could generate up to 6317 additional patient trial registrations every year.Conclusions and relevanceIndependent of sociodemographic variables, the presence of comorbidities is adversely associated with trial discussions, trial offers, and trial participation itself. Updating trial eligibility criteria could provide an opportunity for several thousand more patients with well-managed comorbidities to participate in clinical trials each year.

Project description:BackgroundThough financial hardship is a well-documented adverse effect of standard-of-care cancer treatment, little is known about out-of-pocket costs and their impact on patients participating in cancer clinical trials. This study explored the financial effects of cancer clinical trial participation.MethodsThis cross-sectional analysis used survey data collected in December 2022 and May 2023 from individuals with cancer previously served by Patient Advocate Foundation, a nonprofit organization providing social needs navigation and financial assistance to US adults with a chronic illness. Surveys included questions on cancer clinical trial participation, trial-related financial hardship, and sociodemographic data. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted using Cramer's V to estimate the in-sample magnitude of association. Associations between trial-related financial hardship and sociodemographics were estimated using adjusted relative risks (aRR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) from modified Poisson regression models with robust standard errors.ResultsOf 650 survey respondents, 18% (N = 118) reported ever participating in a cancer clinical trial. Of those, 47% (n = 55) reported financial hardship as a result of their trial participation. Respondents reporting trial-related financial hardship were more often unemployed or disabled (58% vs. 43%; V = 0.15), Medicare enrolled (53% vs. 40%; V = 0.15), and traveled >1 h to their cancer provider (45% vs. 17%; V = 0.33) compared to respondents reporting no hardship. Respondents who experienced trial-related financial hardship most often reported expenses from travel (reported by 71% of respondents), medical bills (58%), dining out (40%), or housing needs (40%). Modeling results indicated that respondents traveling >1 h vs. ≤30 min to their cancer provider had a 2.2× higher risk of financial hardship, even after adjusting for respondent race, income, employment, and insurance status (aRR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.3-3.8). Most respondents (53%) reported needing $200-$1000 per month to compensate for trial-related expenses. Over half (51%) of respondents reported less willingness to participate in future clinical trials due to incurred financial hardship. Notably, of patients who did not participate in a cancer clinical trial (n = 532), 13% declined participation due to cost.ConclusionCancer clinical trial-related financial hardship, most often stemming from travel expenses, affected almost half of trial-enrolled patients. Interventions are needed to reduce adverse financial participation effects and potentially improve cancer clinical trial participation.

Project description:BackgroundGlobalization of clinical trials fosters inclusion of higher and lower income countries, but the influence of enrolling country income level on heart failure trial performance is unclear. This study sought to evaluate associations between enrolling country income level, acute heart failure patient profile, protocol completion, and trial end points.Methods and resultsThe ASCEND-HF (Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure) trial included 7141 patients with acute heart failure from 30 countries. Country income data in gross national income per capita in current US dollars from the year 2007 (ie, the year trial enrollment began) were abstracted from the World Bank. Patients were grouped by enrolling country income level (ie, high [>$11 455], upper middle [$3706-$11 455], lower middle [$936-$3705], and low [<$936]). Income data were available for 29 (97%) countries (N=7064). There were 3996 (57%), 1518 (21%), and 1550 (22%) patients from high-income, upper-middle-income, and lower-middle-income countries, respectively. There were no patients from low-income countries. Patients from lower-middle-income countries tended to be younger with fewer comorbidities and lower utilization of guideline-directed therapies. Rates of adverse events (13.8%) and protocol noncompletion (4.9%) during 180-day follow-up were highest among high-income countries (all P <0.01). After adjustment for race, geographic region, and clinical characteristics, compared with lower-middle-income countries, enrollment from higher income countries was associated with increased 30-day mortality or rehospitalization (high income: odds ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.02-2.85; upper-middle-income: odds ratio, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.23-3.81), driven by higher rates of rehospitalization. Mortality was similar at 30 and 180 days. The association between higher country income and the 30-day composite end point was similar across geographic regions, with exception of Latin America ( P for interaction, 0.03).ConclusionsIn this global acute heart failure trial, patients from higher income countries had lower rates of protocol completion, higher rates of adverse events, and similar mortality rates. After adjustment for race, geographic region, and clinical factors, enrollment from a higher income country was associated with worse clinical outcomes, driven by higher rates of rehospitalization. Variation in enrolling country income level may influence study end points and trial performance independent of geographic region.Clinical trial registrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00475852.

Project description:ImportanceIncreasing participation in fecal screening tests is a major challenge in countries that have implemented colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs.ObjectiveTo determine whether providing general practitioners (GPs) a list of patients who are nonadherent to CRC screening enhances patient participation in fecal immunochemical testing (FIT).Design, setting, and participantsA 3-group, cluster-randomized study was conducted from July 14, 2015, to July 14, 2016, on the west coast of France, with GPs in 801 practices participating and involving adult patients (50-74 years) who were at average risk of CRC and not up-to-date with CRC screening. The final follow-up date was July 14, 2016.InterventionsGeneral practitioners were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 496 received a list of patients who had not undergone CRC screening (patient-specific reminders group, 10 476 patients), 495 received a letter describing region-specific CRC screening adherence rates (generic reminders group, 10 606 patients), and 455 did not receive any reminders (usual care group, 10 147 patients).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was patient participation in CRC screening 1 year after the intervention.ResultsAmong 1482 randomized GPs (mean age, 53.4 years; 576 women [38.9%]), 1446 participated; of the 33 044 patients of these GPs (mean age, 59.7 years; 17 949 women [54.3%]), follow-up at 1 year was available for 31 229 (94.5%). At 1 year, 24.8% (95% CI, 23.4%-26.2%) of patients in the specific reminders group, 21.7% (95% CI, 20.5%-22.8%) in the generic reminders group, and 20.6% (95% CI, 19.3%-21.8%) in the usual care group participated in the FIT screening. The between-group differences were 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3%-5.0%) for the patient-specific reminders group vs the generic reminders group, 4.2% (95% CI, 2.3%-6.2%) for the patient-specific reminders group vs the usual care group, and 1.1% (95% CI, -0.6% to 2.8%) for generic reminders group vs the usual care group.Conclusions and relevanceProviding French GPs caring for adults at average risk of CRC with a list of their patients who were not up-to-date with their CRC screening resulted in a small but significant increase in patient participation in FIT screening at 1 year compared with patients who received usual care. Providing GPs with generic reminders about regional rates of CRC screening did not increase screening rates compared with usual care.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02515344.

Dataset Information

Patient income level and cancer clinical trial participation.

Purpose

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Patient income level and cancer clinical trial participation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets