Dataset Information

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

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.

SUBMITTER: Williams CP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8482053 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To ensure generalizability of clinical research results, it is important to enroll a heterogeneous population that is representative of the target clinical population. Earlier studies have found regional variation in participation in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinical trials, with the lowest rates seen in the southern United States. Rates of new HIV diagnoses are highest in the South, highlighting the need for in-depth understanding of disparities in clinical trial participation. We evaluated whether regional variation in study participation remains, and describe factors that facilitate or prevent HIV clinical trial participation by region.A one-time, anonymous, bilingual, self-administered survey was conducted among HIV-infected adults receiving HIV care at all 47 domestic AIDS Clinical Trials Group clinical research sites, with a goal of completing 50 surveys per site. ?(2) tests were used to evaluate differences in knowledge of and participation in HIV clinical trials by region, including Northeast, Midwest, South, and West regions. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the effect of region on knowledge of and participation in HIV clinical trials.Of 2263 completed surveys, 2125 were included in this analysis. The proportion of respondents in the South who reported knowledge of studies (66%) was significantly lower than in the Northeast (76%), Midwest (77%), and West (73%) (P = 0.001). Respondents in the South also were the least likely group to report ever having tried to or having participated in a research study (51%) compared with respondents in the Northeast (60%), Midwest (57%), and West (69%; P < 0.001). After adjusting for age, sex, education, race/ethnicity, tobacco use, and alcohol use, the odds ratio for knowledge of and participation in clinical trials for the Northeast (1.36; 95% CI 1.07-1.72) and West (1.85; 95% CI 1.39-2.45) remained significant compared with the South. African American respondents in the South were the most likely population group to report not understanding research studies (15%) as a reason for not participating, compared with the Northeast (9%), Midwest (8%), and West (6%; P < 0.001).Significant regional variations in knowledge of and participation in HIV clinical trials exist. Our results suggest that increasing awareness and understanding of research studies, particularly among African Americans in the South, may facilitate HIV clinical trial participation that is more representative of the HIV-infected population across the United States.

Project description:BackgroundPreventive primary care programs that aim to reduce morbidity and mortality from lifestyle-related diseases are often affected by low-to-moderate participation rates. Improving participation rates is essential for clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. In 2016-2017, we conducted a pilot study (TOF pilot1) for a preventive primary care intervention (TOF is the Danish abbreviation for "Early Detection and Prevention"). Among 8814 invited patients, 3545 (40.22%) consented to participate, with the highest participation rates among women and patients with higher income, education, and employment.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a revised invitation strategy on invitation comprehensibility, the overall participation rate, and participant demography. The new strategy specifically targeted men and patients of low educational attainment.MethodsThis study was embedded in the second TOF pilot study (TOF pilot2, initiated in October 2018) that tested an adjusted intervention. The revised invitation strategy comprised a prenotification postcard and a new invitation that specifically targeted men and patients of low educational attainment. The new invitation was developed in a co-design process that included communication professionals and target-group representatives. The study sample consisted of 4633 patients aged between 29 and 59 years, who resided in one of two municipalities in the Region of Southern Denmark. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to one of four invitation groups. The control group (Group 1) received the original invitation used in TOF pilot1. The intervention groups received the original invitation and the prenotification postcard (Group 2), the new revised invitation and the prenotification postcard (Group 3), or the new invitation but no prenotification postcard (Group 4).ResultsOverall, 2171 (46.86%) patients consented to participate. Compared to the control group, participation rates increased significantly in all three intervention groups (all P<.001). Participation across the three intervention groups increased for women and men, as well as for patients with high and low educational attainment and high and low family income. The largest relative increase in participation rates occurred among men, patients with low educational attainment, and patients with low family income. No increase in participation was detected for unemployed patients or patients of non-Danish origin. Most participants found the original (813/987, 82.37%) and new (965/1133, 85.17%) invitations easy to understand with no significant difference (P=.08) in comprehensibility between invitations.ConclusionsThe results suggest that participation in preventive primary care interventions can be greatly increased by implementing a co-design-based invitation strategy that includes prenotification postcards and targeted invitations. Although firm conclusions cannot be made from this study, the observed increased participation rates for men and patients of low socioeconomic status may be relevant in programs that aim to reduce social inequality in health.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03913585; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03913585.

Project description:BackgroundParticipation of general practitioners is crucial for health care studies. However, recruiting them is an ongoing challenge and participation rates of general practitioners around the globe are often low. One feasible and cost-efficient approach to potentially enhance participation rates among general practitioners are personalized invitation letters, since they may increase one's attention to and appreciation of a study. Still, evidence whether this method actually affects participation is scarce and ambiguous in relation to physicians.MethodsWe undertook a randomized trial in a sample of general practitioners from three German states in the context of a large, observational study on physicians' coordination and uptake of recommended cardiovascular ambulatory care. An intervention group (n = 757 general practitioners) received a personalized invitation to participate in the observational study, the control group (n = 754 general practitioners) received a generic invitation. Both groups were blinded to group assignment. Eventual participation rates as well as the number and types of responses overall were compared between arms. Besides the main intervention, sociodemographic and geographical context factors were considered as well.ResultsThe overall participation rate among physicians was 2.6% (2.8% in the intervention group and 2.4% in the control group). No statistically significant effect of personalization on participation of physicians was found (relative risk to participate when receiving a personalized invitation of 1.17 [95%-CI: 0.62, 2.21]). However, the number of responses to the invitation varied significantly between the geographical regions.ConclusionsPersonalization of first written contact alone did not improve research participation among general practitioners, which was overall very low.Trial registrationThe study in which the trial was embedded has been registered prospectively at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) under registration number DRKS00019219 .

Project description:ImportanceSignificant demographic disparities have been found to exist in the delivery of health care. Demographic factors associated with clinical decision-making in kidney cancer have not been thoroughly studied.ObjectiveTo determine whether demographic factors, including sex and race/ethnicity, are associated with receipt of non-guideline-based treatment for kidney cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the National Cancer Database for the years 2010 through 2017. Included patients were individuals aged 30 to 70 years with localized (ie, cT1-2, N0, M0) kidney cancer and no major medical comorbidities (ie, Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index score of 0 or 1) treated at Commission on Cancer-accredited health care institutions in the United States. Data were analyzed from November 2020 through March 2021.ExposuresDemographic factors, including sex, race/ethnicity, and insurance status.Main outcomes and measuresReceipt of non-guideline-based treatment (undertreatment or overtreatment) for kidney cancer, as defined by accepted clinical guidelines, was determined.ResultsAmong 158 445 patients treated for localized kidney cancer, 99 563 (62.8%) were men, 120 001 individuals (75.7%) were White, and 91 218 individuals (57.6%) had private insurance. The median (interquartile range) age was 58 (50-64) years. Of the study population, 48 544 individuals (30.6%) received non-guideline-based treatment. Female sex was associated with lower adjusted odds of undertreatment (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88; P < .001) and higher adjusted odds of overtreatment (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.24-1.30; P < .001) compared with male sex. Compared with White patients, Black and Hispanic patients had higher adjusted odds of undertreatment (Black patients: OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.29-1.55; P < .001; Hispanic patients: OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.06-1.36; P = .004) and overtreatment (Black patients: OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.13; P < .001; Hispanic patients: OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11, P = .01). Individuals who were uninsured, compared with those who had insurance, had statistically significantly higher adjusted odds of undertreatment (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 2.29-3.01; P < .001) and lower adjusted odds of overtreatment (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.77; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that there were significant disparities in treatment decision-making for patients with kidney cancer, with increased rates of non-guideline-based treatment for women and Black and Hispanic patients. These findings suggest that further research into the mechanisms underlying these disparities is warranted and that clinical and policy decision-making should take these disparities into account.