scholarly journals Clinical trial participation in America: The roles of eHealth engagement and patient–provider communication

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 205520762110676
Author(s):  
Shaohai Jiang ◽  
Y. Alicia Hong
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
The United States ◽  
Equation Modeling ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Provider Communication ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Targeted Interventions ◽  
Patient Provider Communication

Objective Public participation in a clinical trial is the foundation of clinical research and the cornerstone for the discovery of new treatment and improving health outcomes. This study aims to examine how eHealth engagement, patient–provider communication, and clinical trial knowledge are associated with clinical trial participation in the United States. Methods Data were drawn from the Health Information National Trends Survey Iteration 5 Cycle 4 conducted in 2020. The sample included 3865 American adults aged 18 years and above. Path analysis using structural equation modeling and hierarchical linear regression was performed to examine the effects of eHealth engagement and patient–provider communication on clinical trial participation. Results About 5% of American adults have ever participated in a clinical trial. Younger adults, males, minorities, and people with lower education, less clinical trial knowledge, and less eHealth engagement were less likely to participate. After controlling for demographic variables, we found that more eHealth engagement led to a better knowledge of clinical trials, which was strongly associated with participation. Further, patient-centered communication did not directly lead to clinical trial participation; instead, it positively moderated the relationship between clinical trial knowledge and participation. Conclusions The national survey data indicate that American participation in clinical trials remains low and a significant disparity exists. Within the context of the eHealth movement, it is critical to implement targeted interventions to improve clinical trial knowledge, address the digital divide, and enhance patient-centered communication.

Adult participation in oncology clinical trials by indication, race, and age.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17586-e17586
Author(s):  
Austin James Combest ◽  
Dirk J. Reitsma ◽  
Angelena Moseley ◽  
Savanna D. Steele ◽  
Marie-Edith Anne Bonneterre
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Ethnic Diversity ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Nccn Guidelines

e17586 Background: According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), approximately 3 percent of adult cancer patients participate in clinical trials despite the NCCN guidelines frequently recommending clinical trials as standard of care in many circumstances (Mooney, 2010). In a large analysis of NCI Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) trials, 40 percent of trials failed to achieve minimum enrollment, including 3 of 5 phase III trials (Cheng, 2010). Additionally, concerns about unequal access to clinical trials led Congress to enact the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act 20 years ago (June 10, 1993). Using data from Ipsos’ Tandem Oncology Monitor, a robust, nationwide system that collects actual prescriptions and clinical trial participation by indication from 500 oncologists and hematologists from the United States, we evaluated current participation and ethnic diversity in clinical trials. Methods: We assessed adult clinical trial participation from October 2011 to September 2012. Age, ethnicity and practice type were also collected to identify descriptive trends. Results: With regards to indication, clinical trial participation ranged from 1 percent (prostate, renal cell and head and neck) to 12 percent (thyroid) averaging between 2 and 3 percent. We observed a decline in first-line metastatic melanoma participation between pre- and post- vemurafenib/ipilimumab approval (9%-pre versus 2%-post). Patient diversity results are included in the Table. Conclusions: Despite efforts to increase oncology clinical trial participation, we have observed overall low clinical trial participation. Additionally, we observed better trial participation in the youngest age groups and minor differences between ethnic categories. Continued focus on increasing trial participation and patient diversity is still needed. [Table: see text]

Changes in clinical trial participation among adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients from 2006 to 2013 in the United States.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18037-e18037 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa Keegan ◽  
Dolly Penn ◽  
Qian Li ◽  
Brad Pollock ◽  
Marcio H. Malogolowkin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Hodgkin Lymphoma ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Racial Ethnic ◽  
Over Time

e18037 Background: Stagnant outcomes for AYAs (15 to 39 years) with cancer are partly attributed to poor enrollment onto clinical trials. Initiatives have focused on increasing accrual, but changes at the population-level are unknown. We examined patterns of clinical trial participation over time in AYA cancer patients. Methods: We utilized medical record data from AYAs in two National Cancer Institute Patterns of Care Studies identified through the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. Among 1,358 AYAs diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), germ cell cancer, and sarcoma in 2006 and 3,560 AYAs diagnosed with NHL, HL, ALL, sarcoma, and breast cancer in 2012/2013, we used unconditional logistic regression to evaluate patient and provider characteristics associated with enrollment by year of diagnosis. Analyses were weighted to reflect the SEER populations and associations are summarized as adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: From 2006 to 2012/2013, clinical trial participation increased from 14.8% to 17.9% among AYAs diagnosed with NHL, HL, ALL and sarcoma (p < 0.0001), primarily due to increased participation among ALL patients (2006: 37.4%; 2012/2013: 42.3%). In 2012/2013, participation varied by type of cancer, with the highest among those with ALL and sarcoma (31.2%), followed by HL (9.4%), NHL (6.9%) and breast cancer (4.3%). In both study years, multivariate analyses demonstrated that younger patients and those treated by pediatric oncologists (OR = 3.5; CI: 2.6-4.7) were more likely to enroll onto clinical trials. Uninsured AYAs were less likely to enroll in 2006 but no association was observed in 2012/2013. Hispanic (OR = 0.5; CI: 0.4-0.6), Black (OR = 0.6; CI: 0.5-0.9) and Asian (OR = 0.4; CI: 0.3-0.6) AYAs were less likely to enroll in 2012/2013 but not 2006. Conclusions: Our study identified increasing overall clinical trial participation over time. Disparities in likelihood of participating for racial/ethnic minority groups increased suggesting the need to improve access to clinical trials for all racial/ethnic groups to improve care and outcomes.

Disparities in clinical trials participation in a vertically integrated care delivery system.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 128-128
Author(s):  
Ahmed Megahed ◽  
Gary L Buchschacher ◽  
Ngoc J. Ho ◽  
Reina Haque ◽  
Robert Michael Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Integrated Healthcare ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment ◽  
Asian Pacific

128 Background: Sparse data exists on the diversity clinical trial enrollment in community settings. This information is important to ensure equity of care and generalizability of results. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of members of an integrated healthcare system diagnosed with invasive malignancies (excluding non-melanoma skin cancers) between 2013-2017 to examine demographics of the oncology population compared to those who enrolled in a clinical trial. Logistic regression was used to assess correlates of clinical trial participation, comparing general and screened samples to enrolled sample. Odds ratios were adjusted for gender, geocoded median household income, cancer type, and stage. Results: Of the 84,977 patients with a cancer diagnosis, N = 2606 were screened for clinical trial participation and consented, and of those N = 1372 enrolled. The percent of Latinx (25.8% vs 24.0%; OR 0.9? CI 0.72-1.05) and African American/Black (10.9% vs 11.1%; OR 0.92 CI 0.75-1.11) clinical trial participation mirrored that of the general oncology population, respectively using Non-Hispanic Whites as reference. Asian/Pacific Islander had equal odds of clinical trial enrollment (OR 1.08 CI 0.92-1.27). The enrolled population was younger than the general oncology population. Conclusions: This study suggests that in an integrated healthcare system with equal access to care, the clinical trials population is well representative of its general oncology population.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals Parental perspectives long term after neonatal clinical trial participation: a survey

Trials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Salaets ◽  
Emilie Lavrysen ◽  
Anne Smits ◽  
Sophie Vanhaesebrouck ◽  
Maissa Rayyan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Drug Trials ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Parental Perspectives ◽  
Positive Experiences ◽  
Almost All

Abstract Background Although recruiting newborns is ethically challenging, clinical trials remain essential to improve neonatal care. There is a lack of empirical data on the parental perspectives following participation of their neonate in a clinical trial, especially at long term. The objective of this study is to assess experiences and emotions of parents, long term after trial participation in an interventional drug trial. Methods Parents of former participants of five neonatal interventional drug trials were surveyed at long term (3–13 years ago) after participation. The survey assessed parental contentment with trial participation, perceived influence of the trial on care and health, emotional consequences of participation, and awareness of typical clinical trial characteristics on 6-point Likert scales. Results Complete responses were received from 123 parents (52% of involved families). Twenty percent of parents did not remember participation. Those who remembered participation reported high contentment with overall trial participation (median 5.00), but not with follow-up (median 3.00). Most parents did not perceive any influence of the trial on care (median 2.00) and health (median 2.43). Almost all parents reported satisfaction and pride (median 4.40), while a minority of parents reported anxiety and stress (median 1.44) or guilt (median 1.33) related to trial participation. A relevant minority was unaware of typical trial characteristics (median 4.20; 27% being unaware). Conclusions Overall, parents reported positive experiences and little emotional distress long term after participation. Future efforts to improve the practice of neonatal clinical trials should focus on ensuring effective communication about the concept and characteristics of a clinical trial during consent discussions and on the follow-up after the trial.

scholarly journals Patient Income Level and Cancer Clinical Trial Participation

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 536-542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph M. Unger ◽  
Dawn L. Hershman ◽  
Kathy S. Albain ◽  
Carol M. Moinpour ◽  
Judith A. Petersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Universal Access ◽  
Participation Rate ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Lower Income ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Results ◽  
The Impact

Purpose Studies have shown an association between socioeconomic status (SES) and quality of oncology care, but less is known about the impact of patient SES on clinical trial participation. Patients and Methods We assessed clinical trial participation patterns according to important SES (income, education) and demographic factors in a large sample of patients surveyed via an Internet-based treatment decision tool. Logistic regression, conditioning on type of cancer, was used. Attitudes toward clinical trials were assessed using prespecified items about treatment, treatment tolerability, convenience, and cost. Results From 2007 to 2011, 5,499 patients were successfully surveyed. Forty percent discussed clinical trials with their physician, 45% of discussions led to physician offers of clinical trial participation, and 51% of offers led to clinical trial participation. The overall clinical trial participation rate was 9%. In univariate models, older patients (P = .002) and patients with lower income (P = .001) and education (P = .02) were less likely to participate in clinical trials. In a multivariable model, income remained a statistically significant predictor of clinical trial participation (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94; P = .01). Even in patients age ≥ 65 years, who have universal access to Medicare, lower income predicted lower trial participation. Cost concerns were much more evident among lower-income patients (P < .001). Conclusion Lower-income patients were less likely to participate in clinical trials, even when considering age group. A better understanding of why income is a barrier may help identify ways to make clinical trials better available to all patients and would increase the generalizability of clinical trial results across all income levels.

P003 INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE PATIENTS’ PERSPECTIVES OF CLINICAL TRIALS

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S53-S53
Author(s):  
David Rubin ◽  
Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet ◽  
Walter Reinisch ◽  
Swati Tole ◽  
Laura Sullivan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Pharmaceutical Manufacturer ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel

Abstract Background Despite recent progress in treatment for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), there is a need for therapies with long-term efficacy and improved safety. Clinical trials in IBD face challenges with patient recruitment because of study designs, competitive or overlapping trials, and a limited number of eligible patients. We sought to better understand patients’ motivations, awareness of, and experience with IBD clinical trials. Methods We conducted an international survey of adult patients with IBD consisting of 2 components. The quantitative component, a 15-minute online survey, was completed by all patients. A qualitative component, a 30-minute telephone interview, was completed by a subset of patients from the United States (US). All percentages indicate results from the online survey. Results 226 patients (mean age, 41.9 y) completed the online survey. Survey respondents included patients with ulcerative colitis (52%) and Crohn’s disease (48%) from the US (n=100, 21 of whom underwent a phone interview), Brazil (n=26), Canada (n=25), France (n=25), Germany (n=25), and Spain (n=25). Ninety-six percent of respondents reported at least a basic understanding of clinical trials, and 34 (15%) were current or past clinical trial participants. Patients reported learning about trials through 1 or more sources (could select as many as applied): health care providers (42%), pharmaceutical manufacturer websites (31%), social media (30%), online support groups (28%), and foundations (18%-23%). In the survey, patients rated conversations with health care providers most helpful, but patients who were interviewed revealed that most physicians often do not initiate conversations about clinical trials, and patients typically do not ask. Primary motivators for trial participation (rated from “does not encourage me at all” to “encourages me very much”) included altruistic goals of advancing medicine (67%), potentially mitigating risks of uncontrolled IBD such as colon cancer (59%), and access to treatment options that could improve quality of life (59%) or would otherwise be unaffordable (52%). Major barriers to participation (rated from “does not discourage me at all” to “discourages me very much”) included invasive screening and monitoring (35%), concern over receiving placebo (35%), or suboptimal treatment (33%), and concerns about posttrial access to study medication (27%). The majority (68%) reported that being in a clinical trial means being a “guinea pig” for an experimental treatment. Conclusion Opportunities to improve patients’ clinical trial experience in IBD include better communication with health care providers and improved patient education about clinical trial design and ethics. Ultimately, a better understanding of the patient perspective will be important for more informed patients and potentially higher recruitment and enrollment.

Entering a Clinical Trial: Is It Right For You?–A randomized study of the Clinical Trials Video and its impact on the informed consent process

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9072-9072
Author(s):  
S. Hitchcock-Bryan ◽  
B. Hoffner ◽  
S. Joffe ◽  
M. Powell ◽  
C. Parker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Informed Consent Process ◽  
Consent Process ◽  
Provider Communication ◽  
Patient Provider Communication ◽  
Source Of Information

9072 Background: In an effort to improve the informed consent process for subjects considering participation in a clinical trial, we created an educational video: “Entering a Clinical Trial: Is it Right for You?” In this randomized study, we assessed the effect of the video on patients’ understanding and perceptions of clinical trials. We also assessed patient satisfaction with the video and how the video impacted decision-making and patient-provider communication. Methods: We recruited 90 adults considering cancer clinical trials of whom 77 participated. After discussing the trial with the physician and reading the trial consent form, patients were randomized to receive (n=38) or not receive (n=39) the study video. Using a validated questionnaire, we interviewed subjects to assess objective understanding of the trial, our primary endpoint, and self-reported understanding of clinical trials. All subjects completed a second interview assessing secondary endpoints, including patient-provider communication, satisfaction with video, and decision-making. We used linear regression (two-sided tests) to conduct the primary analysis and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and descriptive statistics to analyze the secondary aims. Results: Neither objective nor self-reported understanding of clinical trials differed between the two groups (Mean 86.5 vs. 87, p=0.75). 85% (61/72) indicated the video was an important source of information about clinical trials; 89% of those who watched the video with their family/friends (n=37) said the video helped loved ones better understand clinical trials; 73% indicated it helped their family accept their decision about participation. 81% (58/72) felt better prepared to discuss the trial with their physician after watching the video. Of those who found the video helpful with decision- making, 80% (21/26) were considering a trial for the first time compared with 19% (5/26) veterans who had previously participated in a clinical trial. Conclusions: The video did not measurably improve subjects’ understanding of their clinical trials. However, subjects reported that the video was an important source of information, helped them educate their families, and enhanced patient-provider communication. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Barriers to clinical trial accrual: Clinical trialists' perspectives.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18156-e18156
Author(s):  
Edward S. Kim ◽  
Dax Kurbegov ◽  
Patricia A. Hurley ◽  
David Michael Waterhouse
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Contract Research Organization ◽  
The Public ◽  
Community Forum ◽  
Clinical Trial Accrual

e18156 Background: Oncology clinical trial participation rates remain at historic lows. There are many barriers that impede participation. Understanding those barriers, from the perspective of cancer clinical trialists, will help develop solutions to increase physician and site engagement, with the goal of improving accrual rates and advancing cancer treatment. Methods: Physician investigators and research staff from community-based and academic-based research sites were surveyed during ASCO’s Research Community Forum (RCF) Annual Meeting (N = 159) and through a pre-meeting survey (N = 124) in 2018. Findings and potential solutions were discussed during the meeting. Results: 84% of respondents (n = 84) reported that it took 6-8 months to open a trial and 86% (n = 81) reported that trials had unnecessary delays 70% of the time. The top 10 barriers to accrual identified were: insufficient staffing resources, restrictive eligibility criteria, physician buy-in, site access to trials, burdensome regulatory requirements, difficulty identifying patients, lack of suitable trials, sponsor and contract research organization requirements, patient barriers, and site cost-benefit. Respondents shared strategies to address these barriers. Conclusions: The current state of conducting clinical trials is not sustainable and hinders clinical trial participation. New strategies are needed to ensure patients and practices have access to trials, standardize and streamline processes, reduce inefficiencies, simplify trial activation, reduce regulatory burden, provide sufficient compensation to sites, engage the community and patients, educate the public, and increase collaborations. The ASCO RCF offers resources, available to the public, that offer practical strategies to overcome barriers to clinical trial accrual and has ongoing efforts to facilitate oncology practice participation in clinical trials.

Transforming the site feasibility assessment process for oncology clinical trials.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14092-e14092
Author(s):  
Dax Kurbegov ◽  
Patricia A. Hurley ◽  
David Michael Waterhouse ◽  
Grzegorz S. Nowakowski ◽  
Edward S. Kim
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Contract Research Organization ◽  
Feasibility Assessment ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Start Up

e14092 Background: Current methods to assess trial sites for clinical trial participation are onerous, with unnecessary redundancies and no-value steps that impact research site resources and clinical trial participation. This project sought stakeholder feedback on recommendations to transform industry sponsor and contract research organization (CRO) processes for evaluating sites for trials. Methods: An ASCO task force developed recommendations to improve the feasibility assessment process and standardize and centralize questions and forms. A survey was conducted with sites, industry trial sponsors, and CROs to obtain feedback and assess buy-in for the recommendations. Results: Respondents were from 28 oncology research sites (19 academic, 9 community-based), 8 sponsors, and 4 CROs. All stakeholders agreed that the current process is burdensome (93% sites, 90% sponsors, 100% CROs), standardization will improve the process (86% sites, 87% sponsors, 75% CROs). All agreed a centralized portal will reduce burdens (93% sites, 100% sponsors, 75% CROs) and expedite trial start-up (89% sites, 100% sponsors, 75% CROs). Site certification was a viable option for sites (86%) and CROs (75%), but less so for sponsors (57%). Most respondents preferred a two-tier model: 1) a short site questionnaire followed by a pre-study visit for new interactions, and 2) only a pre-study site visit or a teleconference if there is an existing relationship. The greatest benefits were time savings, expedited start-up, reduction in personnel resources, and cost savings. The greatest barriers to adoption were buy-in and alignment from sponsors/CROs and insufficient information about site or protocol. Top predictors of a site’s success on a trial were physician engagement, available patients, and site experience. Conclusions: Site feasibility assessments are important for all stakeholders to establish trial suitability. However, current methods impose tremendous burdens on site resources (reported by authors elsewhere). While this sample is limited, the proposed process and standardization changes show promise to reduce burdens and costs for all stakeholders and expedite patient enrollment onto clinical trials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document