Search

Objectives. We compared the influence of awareness of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the presidential apology for that study on the willingness of Blacks, non-Hispanic Whites, and Hispanics to participate in biomedical research. Methods. The Tuskegee Legacy Project Questionnaire was administered to 1133 adults in 4 US cities. This 60-item questionnaire addressed issues related to the recruitment of minorities into biomedical studies. Results. Adjusted multivariate analysis showed that, compared with Whites, Blacks were nearly 4 times as likely to have heard of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, more than twice as likely to have correctly named Clinton as the president who made the apology, and 2 to 3 times more likely to have been willing to participate in biomedical studies despite having heard about the Tuskegee Syphilis Study (odds ratio [OR] = 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4, 6.2) or the presidential apology (OR = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.4, 3.9). Conclusions. These marked differences likely reflect the cultural reality in the Black community, which has been accustomed to increased risks in many activities. For Whites, this type of information may have been more shocking and at odds with their expectations and, thus, led to a stronger negative impact.

Abstract Background This analysis assessed whether Blacks, Whites and Puerto-Rican (PR) Hispanics differed in their ability to identify the Tuskegee Syphilis Study (TSS) via open-ended questions following lead-in recognition and recall questions. Methods The Tuskegee Legacy Project (TLP) Questionnaire was administered via a Random-Digit Dial (RDD) telephone survey to a stratified random sample of Black, White and PR Hispanic adults in three U.S. cities. Results The TLP Questionnaire was administered to 1,162 adults (356 African-Americans, 313 PR Hispanics, and 493 non-Hispanic Whites) in San Juan, PR, Baltimore, MD and New York City, NY. Recall question data revealed: 1) that 89% or more of Blacks, Whites, and PR Hispanics were not able to name or definitely identify the Tuskegee Syphilis Study by giving study attributes; and, 2) that Blacks were the most likely to provide an open-ended answer that identified the Tuskegee Syphilis Study as compared to Whites and PR Hispanics (11.5% vs 6.3% vs 2.9%, respectively) (p ≤ 0.002). Even when probed by a recognition question, only a minority of each racial/ethnic group (37.1%, 26.9%, and 8.6%, for Blacks, Whites and PR Hispanics, respectively) was able to clearly identify the TSS (p < 0.001). Conclusions The two major implications of these findings for health disparity researchers are 1) that it is unlikely that detailed knowledge of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study has any current widespread influence on the willingness of minorities to participate in biomedical research, and 2) that caution should be applied before assuming that what community leaders 'know and are aware of' is equally 'well known' within their community constituencies.

Objectives. We compared the influence of awareness of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the presidential apology for that study on the willingness of Blacks, non-Hispanic Whites, and Hispanics to participate in biomedical research. Methods. The Tuskegee Legacy Project Questionnaire was administered to 1133 adults in 4 US cities. This 60-item questionnaire addressed issues related to the recruitment of minorities into biomedical studies. Results. Adjusted multivariate analysis showed that, compared with Whites, Blacks were nearly 4 times as likely to have heard of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, more than twice as likely to have correctly named Clinton as the president who made the apology, and 2 to 3 times more likely to have been willing to participate in biomedical studies despite having heard about the Tuskegee Syphilis Study (odds ratio [OR] = 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4, 6.2) or the presidential apology (OR = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.4, 3.9). Conclusions. These marked differences likely reflect the cultural reality in the Black community, which has been accustomed to increased risks in many activities. For Whites, this type of information may have been more shocking and at odds with their expectations and, thus, led to a stronger negative impact. (Am J Public Health. 2008;98:1137-1142. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2006.100131) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The purposes of this analysis were to compare the self-reported willingness of blacks, Puerto-Rican Hispanics and whites to participate as research subjects in biomedical studies, and to determine the reliability of the Tuskegee Legacy Project Questionnaire (TLP)., Methods: The TLP Questionnaire, initially used in a four-city study in 1999-2000, was administered in a follow-up study within a random-digit-dial telephone survey to a stratified random sample of adults in three different U.S. cities: Baltimore, MD; New York City; and San Juan, PR. The questionnaire, a 60-item instrument, contains two validated scales: the Likelihood of Participation (LOP) Scale and the Guinea Pig Fear Factor (GPFF) Scale., Results: Adjusting for age, sex, education, income and city, the LOP Scale was not statistically significantly different for the racial/ethnic groups (ANCOVA, p=87). The GPFF Scale was statistically significantly higher for blacks and Hispanics as compared to whites (adjusted ANCOVA, p<0.001)., Conclusions: The of the findings from the current three-city study, as well as from our prior four-city study, are remarkably similar and reinforce the conclusion that blacks and Hispanics self-report that, despite having a higher fear of participation, they are just as likely as whites to participate in biomedical research.

Objectives: The specific aim of this study was to determine the self-reported likelihood of New York Puerto Ricans (NYPR) and San Juan Puerto Ricans (SJPR) to participate in: 10 site-specific cancer screenings, cancer-screenings conducted by different specific persons/agencies and cancer-screening under specific conditions of what one was asked to do as a part of cancer screening., Methods: The Cancer Screening Questionnaire (CSQ) was administered via random-digit-dial telephone interviews to 154 adults living in San Juan, PR and 155 in New York, NY., Results: Although the self-reported willingness to participate across the 10 site-specific cancer screening exams was consistently high in both cities, SJPR had higher rates, as compared to NYPR for all 10 site-specific cancer screening exams in the unadjusted analyses. A similar pattern was observed regarding the influence of both "who conducts the cancer-screening exam" and "what one is asked to do in a cancer-screening exam" as factors in the willingness to participate in such exams. Adjusted multivariate analysis showed that the odds of SJPR participating in skin cancer screening as compared to NYPR, were three-fold higher to participate in skin cancer screening and were two-fold higher to participate in a cancer screening where they have to be interviewed about their alcohol habits. These two observed differences might reflect the effect of acculturation in the NYPR.