Dataset Information

Recruitment practices for U.S. minority and underserved populations in NRG oncology: Results of an online survey.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Cancer clinical trials (CCT) provide much of the evidence for clinical guidelines and standards of care. But low levels of CCT participation are well documented, especially for minorities.

Methods and materials

We conducted an online survey of 556 recruitment practices across the NRG Oncology network. Survey aims were 1) to learn how sites recruit minority/underserved populations; 2) to better understand the catchment areas of the NRG institutions; and 3) to aid in planning education programs for accrual of minority/underserved populations.

Results

The survey response rate was 34.9%. The most effective methods reported for recruiting minority/underserved participants were patient navigators (44.4%) and translators (38.9%). All institutions reported using a mechanism for eligibility screening and 71% of institutions reported using a screening/enrollment tracking system. CCT training was required at 78.1% and cultural competency training was required at 47.5% of responding institutions. Only 19.9% of sites used community partners to assist with minority recruitment and just 37.1% of respondents reported a defined catchment area. Sites reported very little race and ethnicity data.

Conclusion

This NRG Oncology online survey provides useful data for improvements in trial enrollment and training to recruit minority/underserved populations to CCT. Areas for further investigation include web-based methods for recruitment and tracking, cultural competency training, definition of catchment areas, use of patient navigators, and community partnerships. The survey results will guide recruitment training programs.

SUBMITTER: Cook ED

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6046466 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Recruitment practices for U.S. minority and underserved populations in NRG oncology: Results of an online survey.

Cook Elise D ED Yeager Katherine A KA Cecchini Reena S RS Boparai Jaskaran J Brown Carol L CL Duncan Martha M Cronin Walter M WM Paskett Electra D ED

Contemporary clinical trials communications 20180309

<h4>Introduction</h4>Cancer clinical trials (CCT) provide much of the evidence for clinical guidelines and standards of care. But low levels of CCT participation are well documented, especially for minorities.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>We conducted an online survey of 556 recruitment practices across the NRG Oncology network. Survey aims were 1) to learn how sites recruit minority/underserved populations; 2) to better understand the catchment areas of the NRG institutions; and 3) to aid in pl ...[more]

PMID: 30023443

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Recruiting hard-to-reach populations for health research is challenging. Web-based platforms offer one way to recruit specific samples for research purposes, but little is known about the feasibility of online recruitment and the representativeness and comparability of samples recruited through different Web-based platforms. OBJECTIVE:The objectives of this study were to determine the feasibility of recruiting a hard-to-reach population (pregnant smokers) using 4 different Web-based platforms and to compare participants recruited through each platform. METHODS:A screener and survey were distributed online through Qualtrics Panel, Soapbox Sample, Reddit, and Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize results of each recruitment platform, including eligibility yield, quality yield, income, race, age, and gestational age. RESULTS:Of the 3847 participants screened for eligibility across all 4 Web-based platforms, 535 were eligible and 308 completed the survey. Amazon mTurk yielded the fewest completed responses (n=9), 100% (9/9) of which passed several quality metrics verifying pregnancy and smoking status. Qualtrics Panel yielded 14 completed responses, 86% (12/14) of which passed the quality screening. Soapbox Sample produced 107 completed surveys, 67% (72/107) of which were found to be quality responses. Advertising through Reddit produced the highest completion rate (n=178), but only 29.2% (52/178) of those surveys passed the quality metrics. We found significant differences in eligibility yield, quality yield, age, number of previous pregnancies, age of smoking initiation, current smokers, race, education, and income (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS:Although each platform successfully recruited pregnant smokers, results varied in quality, cost, and percentage of complete responses. Moving forward, investigators should pay careful attention to the percentage yield and cost of online recruitment platforms to maximize internal and external validity.

Project description:Purpose/objectivesMonte Carlo (MC) dose calculation has appeared in primary commercial treatment-planning systems and various in-house platforms. Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) and metal artifact reduction (MAR) techniques complement MC capabilities. However, no publications have yet reported how proton therapy centers implement these new technologies, and a national survey is required to determine the feasibility of including MC and companion techniques in cooperative group clinical trials.Materials/methodsA 9-question survey was designed to query key clinical parameters: scope of MC utilization, validation methods for heterogeneities, clinical site-specific imaging guidance, proton range uncertainties, and how implants are handled. A national survey was distributed to all 29 operational US proton therapy centers on 13 May 2019.ResultsWe received responses from 25 centers (86% participation). Commercial MC was most commonly used for primary plan optimization (16 centers) or primary dose evaluation (18 centers), while in-house MC was used more frequently for secondary dose evaluation (7 centers). Based on the survey, MC was used infrequently for gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecology and extremity compared with other more heterogeneous disease sites (P < .007). Although many centers had published DECT research, only 3/25 centers had implemented DECT clinically, either in the treatment-planning system or to override implant materials. Most centers (64%) treated patients with metal implants on a case-by-case basis, with a variety of methods reported. Twenty-four centers (96%) used MAR images and overrode the surrounding tissue artifacts; however, there was no consensus on how to determine metal dimension, materials density, or stopping powers.ConclusionThe use of MC for primary dose calculation and optimization was prevalent and, therefore, likely feasible for clinical trials. There was consensus to use MAR and override tissues surrounding metals but no consensus about how to use DECT and MAR for human tissues and implants. Development and standardization of these advanced technologies are strongly encouraged for vendors and clinical physicists.

Project description:BackgroundThe proportion of people in the United States who are members of at least two ethnic groups is projected to increase to 10% by the year 2050. This makes addressing health disparities and health inequities in minority populations increasingly more difficult. Minority populations, including those who classify themselves as African American and Hispanic, are using mobile phones to access health information via the internet more frequently than those who classify themselves as white, providing unique opportunities for those in public health and health education to reach these traditionally underserved populations using mobile health (mHealth) interventions.ObjectiveThe objective of this review was to assess studies conducted in the United States that have used mHealth tools and strategies to develop and implement interventions in underserved populations. This review also examines the ways in which mHealth strategies are being employed in public health interventions to these priority population groups, as mobile phone capabilities include text messaging, mobile apps, internet access, emails, video streaming, social media, instant messaging, and more.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted using key search phrases, the matrix method, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flowchart diagram to identify key studies conducted between the years of 2009-2016 in the United States. These studies were reviewed for their use of mHealth interventions in historically underserved and minority populations.ResultsA total of 16,270 articles were initially identified using key search phrases in three databases. Titles were reviewed and articles not meeting criteria were excluded, leaving 156 articles for further review. After additional review for relevance and inclusion criteria, 16 articles were qualified and analyzed.ConclusionsmHealth is a promising area of development for public health and health education. While successful research has been done using text messaging (short message service, SMS) and other mHealth strategies, there is a need for more research using mobile phones and tablet applications. This literature review demonstrates mHealth technology has the ability to increase prevention and health education in health disparate communities and concludes that more specified research is needed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Increasing chronic conditions and multimorbidity is placing growing service pressures on health care, especially primary care services. This comes at a time when GP workforce shortages are starting to be felt across Switzerland, placing a threat on the sustainability of good access to primary care. By establishing multiprofessional teams in primary care, service capacity is increased and the pressures on the GP workforce can be alleviated. The roles of non-medical health professions in primary care are not established so far in Switzerland and the personnel composition of primary care group practices is not known. Therefore this study aims to provide insights into the current composition, educational background and autonomy of the these new professional roles in primary care. METHODS:For this descriptive exploratory study a web-based online survey methodology was used. Group practices were defined as being a medical practice with any specialisation where at least three physicians work together in a team. Based on this restriction 240 eligible group practices were identified in Switzerland. The following four tertiary-level health professions were included in the study: nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and dietitians. Additionally medical practice assistants with couselling competencies were included. RESULTS:A total of 102 practices answered the questionnaire which is equivalent to an answer rate of 43%. The sample included data from 17 cantons. 46.1% of the practices employed non-physician health professionals. Among the tertiary-level health professions, physiotherapists were the most frequent profession with a total of 78 physiotherapists over all group practices, followed by nurses (43), dietitians (34) and occupational therapists (3). In practices which employ those professionals their average number per practice was 3.4. 25.5% of the practices had health professionals employed with advanced roles and competencies. CONCLUSION:The results from this study demonstrate that while nearly 50% of groups practices have established non-physician professionals, only 25% of practices integrate these professionals with advanced roles. Compared with other countries, there would appear to be significant scope to extent and broaden the uptake of non-physician professionals in primary care in Switzerland. Clear policy direction along with supporting regulation and financing arrangements are required.

Project description:Policy Points Engaging and involving underrepresented communities when setting research priorities could make the scientific research agenda more equitable, more just, and more responsive to their needs and values. Groups and individuals from minority and underserved communities strongly prioritized child health and mental health research, often choosing to invest at the highest possible level. Groups consisting of predominantly Native American or Arab American participants invested in culture and beliefs research at the highest level, while many groups did not select it at all. The priority given to culture and beliefs research by these groups illustrates the importance of paying special attention to unique preferences, and not just commonly held views, when getting public input on spending priorities for research.ContextA major contributor to health disparities is the relative lack of resources-including resources for science-allocated to address the health problems of those with disproportionately greater needs. Engaging and involving underrepresented communities in setting research priorities could make the scientific research agenda more equitable, more just, and more responsive to their needs and values. We engaged minority and underserved communities in informed deliberations and report here their priorities for health research.MethodsAcademic-community partnerships adapted the simulation exercise CHAT for setting health research priorities. We had participants from minority and medically underserved communities (47 groups, n = 519) throughout Michigan deliberate about health research priorities, and we used surveys and CHAT software to collect the demographic characteristics and priorities selected by individuals and groups.FindingsThe participants ranged in age (18 to 88), included more women than men, and were overrepresented by minority groups. Nearly all the deliberating groups selected child health and mental health research (93.6% and 95.7%), and most invested at the highest level. Aging, access, promote health, healthy environment, and what causes disease were also prioritized by groups. Research on mental health and child health were high priorities for individuals both before and after group deliberations. Access was the only category more likely to be selected by individuals after group deliberation (77.0 vs 84.0%, OR = 1.63, p = .005), while improve research, health policy, and culture and beliefs were less likely to be selected after group deliberations (all, p < .001). However, the level of investment in many categories changed after the group deliberations. Participants identifying as Black/African American were less likely to prioritize mental health research, and those of Other race were more likely to prioritize culture and beliefs research.ConclusionsMinority and medically underserved communities overwhelmingly prioritized mental health and child health research in informed deliberations about spending priorities.

Project description:BackgroundMolecular oncology testing (MOT) to detect genomic alterations underlying cancer holds promise for improved cancer care. Yet knowledge limitations regarding the delivery of testing services may constrain the translation of scientific advancements into effective health care.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, self-administered, postal survey of active cancer physicians in Ontario, Canada (N = 611) likely to order MOT, and cancer laboratories (N = 99) likely to refer (i.e., referring laboratories) or conduct (i.e., testing laboratories) MOT in 2006, to assess respondents' perceptions of the importance and accessibility of MOT and their preparedness to provide it.Results54% of physicians, 63% of testing laboratories and 60% of referring laboratories responded. Most perceived MOT to be important for treatment, diagnosis or prognosis now, and in 5 years (61% - 100%). Yet only 45% of physicians, 59% of testing labs and 53% of referring labs agreed that patients in their region were receiving MOT that is indicated as a standard of care. Physicians and laboratories perceived various barriers to providing MOT, including, among 70% of physicians, a lack of clear guidelines regarding clinical indications, and among laboratories, a lack of funding (73% - 100%). Testing laboratories were confident of their ability to determine whether and which MOT was indicated (77% and 82% respectively), and perceived that key elements of formal and continuing education were helpful (75% - 100%). By contrast, minorities of physicians were confident of their ability to assess whether and which MOT was indicated (46% and 34% respectively), and while majorities considered various continuing educational resources helpful (68% - 75%), only minorities considered key elements of formal education helpful in preparing for MOT (17% - 43%).ConclusionPhysicians and laboratory professionals were enthusiastic about the value of MOT for cancer care but most did not believe patients were gaining adequate access to clinically necessary testing. Further, our results suggest that many were ill equipped as individual stakeholders, or as a coordinated system of referral and interpretation, to provide MOT. These challenges should inspire educational, training and other interventions to ensure that developments in molecular oncology can result in optimal cancer care.

Dataset Information

Recruitment practices for U.S. minority and underserved populations in NRG oncology: Results of an online survey.

Introduction

Methods and materials

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Recruitment practices for U.S. minority and underserved populations in NRG oncology: Results of an online survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets