Dataset Information

Predictors of Participation in Clinical Research.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite numerous efforts to create more equitable healthcare systems, minority populations face long-standing health disparities compared to White populations. Healthcare research is the necessary foundation for creating equitable health systems and providing patient-centered care. Significant challenges exist, however, with recruiting and engaging underrepresented populations in clinical research.

Objectives

The purpose of this analysis was to determine how research participants' race, trust, and level of education influence participation barriers in clinical research.

Methods

The study used secondary, cross-sectional survey data that were collected between 2014 and 2016 through the former Mid-South Clinical Data Research Network, currently known as the Stakeholders, Technology, and Research Clinical Research Network. Descriptive statistics and Spearman rank correlations were performed between level of education, level of trust, and each attitude statement for each racial category.

Results

A total of 2,190 survey responses were used in the data analysis. The mean age of respondents was 52 years, with majority being women, White, insured, and working full time. Overall, the respondents had favorable attitudes toward research participation. Trust was correlated with agreement in many attitude statements for both White and African American respondents, whereas correlations with education level were more variable depending on racial grouping. Trust level was negatively associated with agreement toward the statement "researchers do not care about me" in White and Native American respondents.

Discussion

The results support the importance of trust to research participation. Generally, education level was not strongly predictive of research participation, although prediction was influenced by race and attitude.

SUBMITTER: Scanlon JK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8231664 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Recruitment into clinical research studies is a major challenge. This study was carried out to explore the perceptions and attitudes towards clinical research participation among the general public in Qatar. A population based questionnaire study was carried out at public events held in Qatar. Residents of Qatar, 18 years or above in age were surveyed, anonymously, following verbal consent. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were conducted. We administered 2517 questionnaires to examine clinical research participation, of which 2379 complete forms were analyzed. Those who had previously been approached to participate in research completed a more detailed assessment. Data showed that only 5.7% participants (n = 134) had previously been approached to participate in a clinical research study. Of these 63.4% (n = 85) had agreed to participate while 36.6% (n = 49) had declined. The main reasons for declining participation included: time constraint (47.8%, n = 11), 'fear' (13.0%, n = 3), lack of awareness about clinical research (8.7%, n = 2) and lack of interest (8.7%, n = 2). 'To help others' (31.8%, n = 27) and 'thought it might improve my access to health care' (24.7%, n = 21) were the prime motivators for participation. There was a general agreement among participants that their previous research experience was associated with positive outcomes for self and others, that the research conduct was ethical, and that opportunities for participation will be welcomed in future. More than ten years of stay within Qatar was a statistically significant determinant of willingness to participate, adjusted odds ratio 5.82 (95% CI 1.93-17.55), p = 0.002. Clinical research participation in Qatar needs improvement. Time constraints, lack of trust in and poor awareness about clinical research are main barriers to participation. Altruism, and improved health access are reported as prime motivators. Deeper insight in to the factors affecting clinical research participation is needed to devise evidence based policies for improvement in recruitment strategies.

Project description:ImportanceIncentivizing research participation is controversial and variably regulated because of uncertainty regarding whether financial incentives serve as undue inducements by diminishing peoples' sensitivity to research risks or unjust inducements by preferentially increasing enrollment among underserved individuals.ObjectiveTo determine whether incentives improve enrollment in real randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or serve as undue or unjust inducements.Design, setting, and participantsTwo RCTs of incentives that were embedded in 2 parent RCTs, 1 comparing smoking cessation interventions (conducted at smoking cessation clinics in 2 health systems) and 1 evaluating an ambulation intervention (conducted across wards of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania) included all persons eligible for the parent trials who did not have prior knowledge of the incentives trials. Recruitment occurred from September 2017 to August 2019 for the smoking trial and January 2018 through May 2019 for the ambulation trial; data were analyzed from January 2020 to July 2020.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to incentives of $0, $200, or $500 for participating in the smoking cessation trial and $0, $100, or $300 for the ambulation trial.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome of each incentive trial was the proportion of people assigned to each recruitment strategy that consented to participate. Each trial was powered to test the hypotheses that incentives served neither as undue inducements (based on the interaction between incentive size and perceived research risk, as measured using a 10-point scale, on the primary outcome), nor unjust inducements (based on the interaction between incentive size and participants' self-reported income). Noninferiority methods were used to test whether the data were compatible with these 2 effects of incentives and superiority methods to compare the primary and other secondary outcomes.ResultsThere were a total of 654 participants (327 women [50.0%]; mean [SD] age, 50.6 [12.1] years; 394 Black/African American [60.2%], 214 White [32.7%], and 24 multiracial individuals [3.7%]) in the smoking trial, and 642 participants (364 women [56.7%]; mean [SD] age, 46.7 [15.6] years; 224 Black/African American [34.9%], 335 White [52.2%], and 5 multiracial individuals [0.8%]) in the ambulation trial. Incentives significantly increased consent rates among those in the smoking trial in 47 of 216 (21.8%), 78 of 217 (35.9%), and 104 of 221 (47.1%) in the $0, $200, and $500 groups, respectively (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for each increase in incentive, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.34-2.17; P < .001). Incentives did not increase consent among those in the ambulation trial: 98 of 216 (45.4%), 102 of 212 (48.1%), and 92 of 214 (43.0%) in the $0, $100, and $300 groups, respectively (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22; P = .45). In neither trial was there evidence of undue or unjust inducement (upper confidence limits of ORs for undue inducement, 1.15 and 0.99; P < .001 showing noninferiority; upper confidence limits of ORs for unjust inducement, 1.21 and 1.26; P = .01 and P < .001, respectively). There were no significant effects of incentive size on the secondary outcomes in either trial, including time spent reviewing the risk sections of consent forms, perceived research risks, trial understanding, perceived coercion, or therapeutic misconceptions.Conclusions and relevanceIn these 2 randomized clinical trials, financial incentives increased trial enrollment in 1 of 2 trials and did not produce undue or unjust inducement or other unintended consequences in either trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697799.

Project description:IntroductionThe need to rapidly identify safe and efficacious drug therapies for COVID-19 has resulted in the implementation of multiple clinical trials investigating potential treatment options. These are being undertaken in an unprecedented research environment and at a higher speed than ever before. It is unclear how West African communities perceive such activities and how such perceptions influence participation in COVID-19 clinical trials. This qualitative study was conducted to assess the level of acceptability of a clinical trial on the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in The Gambia and identify strategies to better engage communities in participating in such a trial.MethodsData were collected using digitally recorded semistructured interviews (SSIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) in Brikama and Kanifing local government areas. These are two of the most densely populated administrative subdivisions in The Gambia, where the clinical trial was to be implemented by the MRC Unit The Gambia. 26 men and 22 women aged between 19 and 70 years, with diverse socioeconomic profiles, participated in 8 FGDs (n=36) and 12 SSIs (n=12). Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.ResultsFear of stigmatisation of patients with COVID-19 was a recurring theme in most FGDs and SSIs, with detrimental effects on willingness to accept COVID-19 testing and home visits to follow up patients with COVID-19 and their household contacts. Preserving the privacy of individuals enrolled in the study was key to potentially increase trial participation. Trust in the implementing institution and its acknowledged expertise were facilitators to accepting the administration of investigational products to sick individuals and their close contacts.ConclusionCOVID-19 is a stigmatising disease. Developing a research-participant collaboration through an ongoing engagement with community members is crucial to a successful enrolment in COVID-19 clinical trials. Trust and acknowledged expertise of the implementing institution are key facilitators to foster such collaboration.