Search

Background: In recent years, extensive attention has been paid to the possibility that bias among health care professionals contributes to health disparities. In its 2003 report, the Institute of Medicine concluded that bias against racial minorities may affect communication or care offered. However, to the authors' knowledge, the role of bias within the context of recruitment of racial and ethnic minorities to cancer clinical trials has not been explored to date. Therefore, the authors assessed the experiences of clinical and research personnel related to factors influencing the recruitment of racial and ethnic minorities for cancer clinical trials., Methods: A total of 91 qualitative interviews were conducted at 5 US cancer centers among 4 stakeholder groups: 1) cancer center leaders; 2) principal investigators; 3) referring clinicians; and 4) research staff. Data analysis was conducted using a content analysis approach to generate themes from the transcribed interviews., Results: Five prominent themes emerged: 1) recruitment interactions with potential minority participants were perceived to be challenging; 2) potential minority participants were not perceived to be ideal study candidates; 3) a combination of clinic-level barriers and negative perceptions of minority study participants led to providers withholding clinical trial opportunities from potential minority participants; 4) when clinical trial recruitment practices were tailored to minority patients, addressing research misconceptions to build trust was a common strategy; 5) for some respondents, race was perceived as irrelevant when screening and recruiting potential minority participants for clinical trials., Conclusions: Not only did some respondents view racial and ethnic minorities as less promising participants, some respondents reported withholding trial opportunities from minorities based on these perceptions. Some providers endorsed using tailored recruitment strategies whereas others eschewed race as a factor in trial recruitment. The presence of bias and stereotyping among clinical and research professionals recruiting for cancer clinical trials should be considered when designing interventions to increase minority enrollment., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)

National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated cancer centers are charged with reducing disparities, improving cancer-related health outcomes, and increasing clinical trial participation for the catchment area population. Succeeding in this endeavor requires a clear definition of each cancer center's geographic catchment area as well as the demographic characteristics of the populations residing in the catchment area. For this reason, the definition of the catchment area is now a required element of NCI grant applications. This primer provides detailed information related to the definition of cancer centers' catchment areas and provides a case example from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center to highlight best practice strategies for compiling and interpreting cancer health statistics for the catchment area., (© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background/aims: Trust is the cornerstone of clinical trial recruitment and retention. Efforts to decrease barriers and increase clinical trial participation among diverse populations have yielded modest results. There is an urgent need to better understand the complex interactions between trust and clinical trial participation. The process of trust-building has been a focus of intense research in the business community. Yet, little has been published about trust in oncology clinical trials or the process of building trust in clinical trials. Both clinical trials and business share common dimensions. Business strategies for building trust may be transferable to the clinical trial setting. This study was conducted to understand and utilize contemporary thinking about building trust to develop an Integrated Model of Trust that incorporates both clinical and business perspectives., Methods: A key word-directed literature search of the PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, and Google Search databases for entries dated between 1 January 1985 and 1 September 2015 was conducted to obtain information from which to develop an Integrated Model of Trust., Results: Successful trial participation requires both participants and clinical trial team members to build distinctly different types of interpersonal trust to effect recruitment and retention. They are built under conditions of significant emotional stress and time constraints among people who do not know each other and have never worked together before. Swift Trust and Traditional Trust are sequentially built during the clinical trial process. Swift trust operates during the recruitment and very early active treatment phases of the clinical trial process. Traditional trust is built over time and operates during the active treatment and surveillance stages of clinical trials. The Psychological Contract frames the participants' and clinical trial team members' interpersonal trust relationship. The "terms" of interpersonal trust are negotiated through the psychological contract. Contract renegotiation occurs in response to cyclical changes within the trust relationship throughout trial participation., Conclusion: The Integrated Model of Trust offers a novel framework to interrogate the process by which diverse populations and clinical trial teams build trust. To our knowledge, this is the first model of trust-building in clinical trials that frames trust development through integrated clinical and business perspectives. By focusing on the process, rather than outcomes of trust-building diverse trial participants, clinical trials teams, participants, and cancer centers may be able to better understand, measure, and manage their trust relationships in real time. Ultimately, this may foster increased recruitment and retention of diverse populations to clinical trials.

Background: Disproportionally low retention of minority populations can adversely affect the generalizability of clinical research trials. We determine the overall retention rates for White and Black participants from the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) and explore participant and site characteristics associated with retention failure (study disengagement) for these groups., Methods: A secondary analysis of 28,118 White (age ≥55), and 4,322 Black (age ≥ 50) SELECT participants used multivariate Cox regression to estimate overall retention rates and to calculate HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Results: Blacks had higher age-adjusted risk of disengagement than Whites (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.77-2.08). Among Black participants, those ages 50 to 54 were at three times the risk of disengagement than those ≥65 years of age (HR, 3.61; 95% CI, 2.41-5.41). Blacks age ≥65 had 1.6 times the risk of disengagement than Whites age ≥65 (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.38-1.87). By 6 years after randomization, 84% of Whites and 69% of Blacks remained engaged in the study. Current smoking status was an independent risk factor for study disengagement for both White and Black participants. For both groups, sites whose staffs missed SELECT training sessions or who received SELECT Retention and Adherence grants were associated with increased and decreased disengagement risks, respectively., Conclusions: SELECT retention was disproportionately lower for Blacks than for Whites., Impact: The observed difference in retention rates for Blacks and Whites and factors identified by race for study disengagement in SELECT may inform retention efforts for future long-term, cancer prevention trials., (©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: African American accrual to prevention trials at rates representative of the disease burden experienced by this population requires additional resources and focused efforts., Purpose: To describe the rationale, context, and criteria for selection of sites that received Minority Recruitment Enhancement Grants (MREGs) to increase African American recruitment to the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT). To determine if African American accrual was higher among the 15 MREG sites when compared with similar nonawarded sites., Methods: Changes in African American accrual at sites that received MREGs are compared with changes in a group of 15, frequency-matched, nonawarded sites using a quasi-experimental, post hoc analysis. Successful and unsuccessful recruitment strategies reported by the MREG sites are described., Results: The increased number of African American participants accrued per month at MREG sites post-funding was higher than the change at comparison sites by a factor of 3.38 (p = 0.004, 95% CI: 1.51-7.57). An estimated 602 additional African American participants were recruited at MREG sites due to MREG funding, contributing to the overall 14.9% African American recruitment. Successful recruitment strategies most reported by MREG sites included increasing staff, transportation resources, recruiting through the media, mailings, and prostate cancer screening clinics during off-hours., Limitations: Comparison sites were chosen retrospectively, not by randomization. Although comparison sites were selected to be similar to MREG sites with regard to potential confounding factors, it is possible that unknown factors could have biased results. Cost-effective analyses were not conducted., Conclusions: MREG sites increased African American accrual in the post-funding period more than comparison sites, indicating MREG funding enhanced the sites' abilities to accrue African American participants. Targeted grants early in the accrual period may be a useful multi-site intervention to increase African American accrual for a prevention study where adequate African American representation is essential.

ContextSecondary analyses of 2 randomized controlled trials and supportive epidemiologic and preclinical data indicated the potential of selenium and vitamin E for preventing prostate cancer.ObjectiveTo determine whether selenium, vitamin E, or both could prevent prostate cancer and other diseases with little or no toxicity in relatively healthy men.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized, placebo-controlled trial (Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial [SELECT]) of 35,533 men from 427 participating sites in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico randomly assigned to 4 groups (selenium, vitamin E, selenium + vitamin E, and placebo) in a double-blind fashion between August 22, 2001, and June 24, 2004. Baseline eligibility included age 50 years or older (African American men) or 55 years or older (all other men), a serum prostate-specific antigen level of 4 ng/mL or less, and a digital rectal examination not suspicious for prostate cancer.InterventionsOral selenium (200 microg/d from L-selenomethionine) and matched vitamin E placebo, vitamin E (400 IU/d of all rac-alpha-tocopheryl acetate) and matched selenium placebo, selenium + vitamin E, or placebo + placebo for a planned follow-up of minimum of 7 years and a maximum of 12 years.Main outcome measuresProstate cancer and prespecified secondary outcomes, including lung, colorectal, and overall primary cancer.ResultsAs of October 23, 2008, median overall follow-up was 5.46 years (range, 4.17-7.33 years). Hazard ratios (99% confidence intervals [CIs]) for prostate cancer were 1.13 (99% CI, 0.95-1.35; n = 473) for vitamin E, 1.04 (99% CI, 0.87-1.24; n = 432) for selenium, and 1.05 (99% CI, 0.88-1.25; n = 437) for selenium + vitamin E vs 1.00 (n = 416) for placebo. There were no significant differences (all P>.15) in any other prespecified cancer end points. There were statistically nonsignificant increased risks of prostate cancer in the vitamin E group (P = .06) and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the selenium group (relative risk, 1.07; 99% CI, 0.94-1.22; P = .16) but not in the selenium + vitamin E group.ConclusionSelenium or vitamin E, alone or in combination at the doses and formulations used, did not prevent prostate cancer in this population of relatively healthy men.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00006392.