Receptiveness and barriers to clinical trial participation for oncology patients from a public safety-net hospital.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 83-83
Author(s):  
Victor Yundeh Chiu ◽  
Jacob S. Berkowitz ◽  
Joshua Rodriguez ◽  
Jade Law ◽  
Kristina Lee ◽  
...  

83 Background: Oncologic clinical trial enrollment is low, particularly in underserved populations. Increasing enrollment of public safety-net hospital patients is important to ensure representation of the general population and reduces cancer outcome disparities. To tailor clinical trial outreach, we sought to characterize attitudes towards trial participation of oncology patients at Olive View—UCLA Medical Center (OVMC), a public safety-net hospital in Los Angeles County. Methods: We developed a 39-question survey (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). It was administered via tablets to a convenience sample of patients in OVMC’s medical oncology clinic and infusion center during 2020—2021. The survey was offered to patients fluent in English or Spanish. Results: Of 165 patients who were offered the survey, 11 declined due to illiteracy in any language, 4 did not finish the survey. Median age was 54 (range: 20-81); 63% were female. The majority (76%) reported an annual income below $25,000; 39% did not complete high school. Self-identified ethnicity was Hispanic/Latino (73%), non-Hispanic White (12%), Asian-Pacific Islander (9%), and Black (4%). Based on a 5-point Likert scale of comfort speaking English, 48% had English proficiency (EP). Overall, 69% of patients expressed interest in trials. When considering participation, patients would seek advice from their physician (86%), family (32%), other medical staff (14%), alternative medicine practitioner (7%), friend (6%), or religious leader (4%). Concerns regarding trial participation were lack of knowledge regarding trials (47%), fear of side effects (43%), frequent visits (25%), cost (20%), transportation (14%), wage loss (9%), and inability to determine own treatment (4%). Patients found the following modalities useful for learning about trials: website (43%), paper handout (39%), video (37%), discussion with prior participants (34%). Patients with annual income > $25,000 were significantly more concerned about cost (33.3% v. 15.8%, p = 0.04) and treatment side effects (61.1% v. 36.8%, p = 0.02). EP patients were more likely to find a website (54.2% vs. 32.1%, p = 0.01) or discussion with prior participants (45.8% v. 23.1%, p < 0.01) helpful compared to low EP patients. Conclusions: There is considerable interest in oncologic clinical trials in this predominantly Hispanic/Latino population. This population had significant trust in physicians for guidance on trial enrollment, and had minimal concern for out-of-pocket cost, wage loss, or transportation issues. The majority of patients did not find additional informational resources helpful. Structural barriers rather than patient-level variables are likely the primary drivers of low oncologic trial enrollment. Future efforts should focus on improving access to appropriate trials and leveraging the physician-patient relationship for increasing trial participation.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18533-e18533
Author(s):  
Victor Yundeh Chiu ◽  
Jacob S. Berkowitz ◽  
Joshua Rodriguez ◽  
Kristina Lee ◽  
Joe Torres ◽  
...  

e18533 Background: Prior studies have shown that when patients with cancer engage with social media, they have positive outcomes, including clinical trial participation, volunteerism and advocacy, and diminished levels of anxiety. However, active users of social media tend to be white, well-educated, and of higher socioeconomic status. Little is known about the use of technology and social media by underserved oncology populations, particularly patients with limited English proficiency (LEP). We sought to characterize current technology use by patients at Olive View—UCLA Medical Center (OVMC), a safety net hospital in Los Angeles County. Methods: We developed an anonymous online survey (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) comprised of 39 questions. The survey was administered, via touchscreen tablets from January 2020 through January 2021, to a convenience sample of patients seen in OVMC’s outpatient medical oncology clinic. The survey was available in English and Spanish, and we excluded patients who were not fluent in either language. Patients were categorized as having LEP versus English proficiency (EP) by self-assessment, on a 5-point Likert scale, of their comfort in speaking English. Differences between the LEP and EP groups were assessed using Pearson’s chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test. Results: Of 113 patients who were offered the survey, 10 (9%) declined participation because of illiteracy in their primary language or inability to use a tablet. Reponses were recorded for 50 patients with LEP and 53 with EP. The LEP and EP groups, respectively, were similar in their representation of women (62% and 64%) and mean age (58 years and 51 years). High school completion rates were 32% for the LEP group and 70% for the EP group. A higher proportion of the LEP group identified as Hispanic/Latinx (84%) compared to the EP group (58%). The LEP group was less likely than the EP group to have internet access (63% vs. 98%, P< 0.01). However, among patients with internet access, social media use was similar in the LEP and EP groups (65% vs. 71%, P= 0.7). Facebook was the most used platform by the LEP (22%) and EP (32%) groups; other platforms (e.g., Twitter, Instagram) were used by very few respondents. The LEP group was less likely than the EP group to have activated the OVMC online patient portal (19% vs. 47%, P< 0.01) and less likely to perceive websites as helpful for learning about clinical trials (30% vs. 53%, P= 0.03). Conclusions: A notable proportion of safety net oncology patients at OVMC do not engage with tablet technology because of illiteracy or lack of comfort with touchscreens. Patients with LEP are less likely to have internet access, but those with access use social media about as often as patients with EP, and prefer Facebook over other platforms. For patients with LEP, engagement efforts, including clinical trial outreach, should continue to include non–internet-based resources in patients’ native languages.


2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 1047-1058
Author(s):  
Andin Josipovic ◽  
Jeffrey Reese ◽  
Erin C. Cantarero ◽  
Christopher S. Elliott

2019 ◽  
Vol 229 (4) ◽  
pp. S67-S68
Author(s):  
Kasim L. Mirza ◽  
Carey Wickham ◽  
Erik Noren ◽  
Kyle G. Cologne ◽  
Glenn T. Ault ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document