Fair payment and just benefits to enhance diversity in clinical research

Operationalizing Equity, Inclusion, and Access in Research Practice at a Large Academic Institution

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare advances are hindered by underrepresentation in prospective research; sociodemographic, data, and measurement infidelity in retrospective research; and a paucity of guidelines surrounding equitable research practices.

OBJECTIVE

The Joint Research Practices Working Group was created in 2021 to develop and disseminate guidelines for the conduct of inclusive and equitable research.

METHODS

Volunteer faculty and staff from two research centers at the University of Pennsylvania initiated a multi-pronged approach to guideline development, including literature searches, center-level feedback, and mutual learning with local experts.

RESULTS

We developed guidelines for (1) participant payment and incentives; (2) language interpretation and translation; (3) plain language in research communications; (4) readability of study materials; and (5) inclusive language for scientific communications. Key recommendations include (1) offer cash payments and multiple payment options to participants when required actions are completed; (2) identify top languages of your target population, map points of contact, and determine available interpretation and translation resources; (3) assess reading levels of materials and simplify language, targeting 6th- to 8th-grade reading levels; (4) improve readability through text formatting and style, symbols, and visuals; and (5) use specific, humanizing terms as adjectives rather than nouns.

CONCLUSIONS

Diversity, inclusion, and access are critical values for research conduct that promotes justice and equity. These values can be operationalized through organizational commitment that combines bottom-up and top-down approaches and through partnerships across organizations that promote mutual learning and synergy. While our guidelines represent best practices at one time, we recognize that practices evolve and need to be evaluated continuously for accuracy and relevance. Our intention is to bring awareness to these critical topics and form a foundation for important conversations surrounding equitable and inclusive research practices.

The psychological burden of NMOSD - a mixed method study of patients and caregivers

Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is an inflammatory disorder of the central nervous system with common symptoms of rapid onset of eye pain, loss of vision, neck/back pain, paralysis, bowel and bladder dysfunction and heat sensitivity. The rare, unpredictable, and debilitating nature of NMOSD constitutes a unique psychological burden for patients and their caregivers, the specific nature and extent of which is not yet known. This mixed methods study, informed by both quantitative and qualitative data collected via self-report measures, focus groups, and in-depth interviews, aims to investigate and understand the psychological burden of patients with NMOSD and their caregiver/loved ones, so as to inform a specialized intervention. 31 adults living with NMOSD and 22 caregivers of people with NMOSD in the United States and Canada, recruited from NMOSD patient advocacy groups, social media groups, and through word of mouth from other participants, completed a battery of standardized self-report measures of anxiety, depression, trauma, cognitive fusion, valued living, and coping styles. Semi-structured focus group sessions were conducted via HIPAA-compliant Zoom with 31 patients, and separate focus groups were conducted with 22 caregivers. A subset of these samples, comprised of 16 patients and 11 caregivers, participated in individual semi-structured interviews, prioritizing inclusion of diverse perspectives. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were run on quantitative self-report data using SPSS [Version 28.0.1]; data were stored in REDCap. Reflexive thematic analysis was employed regarding qualitative individual interview data. The majority of patients reported experiencing anxiety, depression, cognitive fusion, over-controlled coping, and lack of values-based living. Caregivers also reported heightened anxiety, cognitive fusion, and over-controlled coping, although they did not endorse clinically significant depression. Patient and caregiver degree of anxiety and of overcontrolled coping were both strongly positively correlated, likely affecting how both parties manage NMOSD-related stressors, both individually and as a dyad. Patients reported more anxiety, depression, psychological inflexibility, and lack of values-based living, compared with caregivers. Patient and caregiver narrative themes included mistrust of medical professionals, lack of support immediately following diagnosis, changes in relationships, deviation from values-based living, internalization of feelings, and avoidant coping strategies to manage the psychological burden of NMOSD. A novel mental health intervention targeting the specific psychological burden of life with NMOSD is proposed.

Exploring the barriers to, and importance of, participant diversity in early-phase clinical trials: an interview-based qualitative study of professionals and patient and public representatives

OBJECTIVES

To explore the importance of, and barriers to achieving, diversity in early-phase clinical trials.

DESIGN

Qualitative interviews analysed using thematic analysis.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Five professionals (clinical researchers and methodologists) and three patient and public representatives (those with experience of early-phase clinical trials and/or those from ethnic minority backgrounds) were interviewed between June and August 2022. Participants were identified via their institutional web page, existing contacts or social media (eg, X, formerly known as Twitter).

RESULTS

Professionals viewed that diversity is not currently considered in all early-phase clinical trials but felt that it should always be taken into account. Such trials are primarily undertaken at a small number of centres, thus limiting the populations they can access. Referrals from clinicians based in the community may increase diversity; however, those referred are often not from underserved groups. Referrals may be hindered by the extra resources required to approach and recruit underserved groups and participants often having to undertake 'self-driven' referrals. Patient and public representatives stated that diversity is important in research staff and that potential participants should be informed of the need for diversity. Those from underserved groups may require clarification regarding the potential harms of a treatment, even if these are unknown. Education may improve awareness and perception of early-phase clinical trials. We provide 14 recommendations to improve diversity in early-phase clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Diversity should be considered in all early-phase trials. Consideration is required regarding the extent of diversity and how it is addressed. The increased resources needed to recruit those from underserved groups may warrant funders to increase the funds to support the recruitment of such participants. The potential harms and societal benefits of the research should be presented to potential participants in a balanced but accurate way to increase transparency.

Equity Concerns Across Pediatric Research Recruitment: An Analysis of Research Staff Interviews

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Difficulty recruiting individuals from minoritized and underserved populations for clinical research is well documented and has health equity implications. Previously, we reported findings from interviews with research staff about pediatric research recruitment processes. Respondents raised equity concerns related to recruitment and enrollment of participants from minoritized, low resourced, and underserved populations. We therefore decided to perform a secondary coding of the transcripts to examine equity-related issues systematically.

METHODS

We conducted a process of secondary coding and analysis of interviews with research staff involved in recruitment for pediatric clinical research. Through consensus we identified codes relevant to equity and developed a conceptual framework including 5 stages of research.

RESULTS

We analyzed 28 interviews and coded equity-related items. We report 6 implications of our findings. First, inequitable access to clinical care is an upstream barrier to research participation. Second, there is a need to increase research opportunities where underserved and under-represented populations receive care. Third, increasing research team diversity can build trust with patients and families, but teams must ensure adequate support of all research team members. Fourth, issues related to consent processes raise institutional-level opportunities for improvement. Fifth, there are numerous study procedure-related barriers to participation. Sixth, our analysis illustrates that individuals who speak languages other than English face barriers across multiple stages.

CONCLUSIONS

Research staff members identified equity-related concerns and recommended potential solutions across 5 stages of the research process, which may guide those endeavoring to improve research recruitment for pediatric patients from minoritized and underserved populations.

Financial Cost Analysis Associated with a Locomotor Exercise Randomized Controlled Trial in Chronic Stroke

Background

Post-stroke recovery trials pose distinct recruitment and retention challenges, and understanding the financial requirements of conducting randomized controlled trials is crucial to ensure sufficient resources for successful study execution. The purpose of this analysis was to quantify the costs at a single site with a large catchment area of the Moderate-Intensity Exercise Versus High-Intensity Interval Training to Recover Walking Post-Stroke, HIT Stroke Trial.

Methods

To determine cost, study expense reports were gathered and divided into four categories: oversight, recruitment, retention, and outcome assessments. Categories were then further divided into chronological order for initial contact and prescreening, consenting, initial screening, and baseline testing. The 12-week intervention was divided into 4-week blocks: intervention block 1, post 4-week outcome testing, intervention block 2, post 8-week outcome testing, intervention block 3, and post 12-week outcome testing.

Results

Total direct cost for site execution was $539,768 with cost per participant approximated as $35,984. Oversight costs accounted for 65.8% of the budget at $355,661. To achieve goals related to inclusive participant recruitment ($21,923) and retention ($28,009), our site costs totaled $49,932. Direct study-related costs included screening assessments ($5,905), baseline assessments ($15,028), intervention ($76,952), and outcome assessments ($36,288).

Conclusion

Clinical trials on walking rehabilitation and exercise, especially those involving multiple assessment visits, require intensive oversight. This cost analysis provides important and critical insight into the expenses required to successfully execute an exercise-based walking rehabilitation trial in the United States.

Online Forums as a Tool for Broader Inclusion of Voices on Health Care Communication Experiences and Serious Illness Care: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Existing health care research, including serious illness research, often underrepresents individuals from historically marginalized communities. Capturing the nuanced perspectives of individuals around their health care communication experiences is difficult. New research strategies are needed that increase engagement of individuals from diverse backgrounds.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop a mixed methods approach with qualitative online forums to better understand health communication experiences of individuals, including people from groups historically marginalized such as Black and Latino individuals; older adults; and people with low income, disability, or serious illness.

METHODS

We used a multiphase mixed methods, community-informed research approach to design study instruments and engage participants. We engaged a diverse group of collaborators with lived experience of navigating the health care system who provided feedback on instruments, added concepts for testing, and offered guidance on creating a safe experience for participants (phase 1). We conducted a national quantitative survey between April and May 2021 across intrapersonal, interpersonal, and systems-level domains, with particular focus on interpersonal communication between patients and clinicians (phase 2). We conducted two asynchronous, qualitative online forums, a technique used in market research, between June and August 2021, which allowed us to contextualize the learnings and test concepts and messages (phase 3). Using online forums allowed us to probe more deeply into results and hypotheses from the survey to better understand the "whys" and "whats" that surfaced and to test public messages to encourage action around health.

RESULTS

We engaged 46 community partners, including patients and clinicians from a Federally Qualified Health Center, to inform study instrument design. In the quantitative survey, 1854 adults responded, including 50.5% women, 25.2% individuals over 65 years old, and 51.9% individuals with low income. Nearly two-thirds identified as non-Hispanic white (65.7%), 10.4% identified as non-Hispanic Black, and 15.5% identified as Hispanic/Latino. An additional 580 individuals participated in online forums, including 60.7% women, 17.4% individuals over 65 years old, and 49.0% individuals with low income. Among the participants, 70.3% identified as non-Hispanic white, 16.0% as non-Hispanic Black, and 9.5% as Hispanic/Latino. We received rich, diverse input from our online forum participants, and they highlighted satisfaction and increased knowledge with engagement in the forums.

CONCLUSIONS

We achieved modest overrepresentation of people who were over 65 years old, identified as non-Hispanic Black, and had low income in our online forums. The size of the online forums (N=580) reflected the voices of 93 Black and 55 Hispanic/Latino participants. Individuals who identify as Hispanic/Latino remained underrepresented, likely because the online forums were offered only in English. Overall, our findings demonstrate the feasibility of using the online forum qualitative approach in a mixed methods study to contextualize, clarify, and expound on quantitative findings when designing public health and clinical communications interventions.

Reducing intervention- and research-induced inequalities to tackle the digital divide in health promotion

Social inequalities are an important contributor to the global burden of disease within and between countries. Using digital technology in health promotion and healthcare is seen by some as a potential lever to reduce these inequalities; however, research suggests that digital technology risks re-enacting or evening widening disparities. Most research on this digital health divide focuses on a small number of social inequality indicators and stems from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) countries. There is a need for systematic, international, and interdisciplinary contextualized research on the impact of social inequality indicators in digital health as well as the underlying mechanisms of this digital divide across the globe to reduce health disparities. In June 2023, eighteen multi-disciplinary researchers representing thirteen countries from six continents came together to discuss current issues in the field of digital health promotion and healthcare contributing to the digital divide. Ways that current practices in research contribute to the digital health divide were explored, including intervention development, testing, and implementation. Based on the dialogue, we provide suggestions for overcoming barriers and improving practices across disciplines, countries, and sectors. The research community must actively advocate for system-level changes regarding policy and research to reduce the digital divide and so improve digital health for all.

Effects of pay rate and instructions on attrition in crowdsourcing research

Researchers in social sciences increasingly rely on crowdsourcing marketplaces such as Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and Prolific to facilitate rapid, low-cost data collection from large samples. However, crowdsourcing suffers from high attrition, threatening the validity of crowdsourced studies. Separate studies have demonstrated that (1) higher pay rates and (2) additional instructions-i.e., informing participants about task requirements, asking for personal information, and describing the negative impact of attrition on research quality-can reduce attrition rates with MTurk participants. The present study extended research on these possible remedies for attrition to Prolific, another crowdsourcing marketplace with strict requirements for participant pay. We randomly assigned 225 participants to one of four groups. Across groups, we evaluated effects of pay rates commensurate with or double the US minimum wage, expanding the upper range of this independent variable; two groups also received additional instructions. Higher pay reduced attrition and correlated with more accurate performance on experimental tasks but we observed no effect of additional instructions. Overall, our findings suggest that effects of increased pay on attrition generalize to higher minimum pay rates and across crowdsourcing platforms. In contrast, effects of additional instructions might not generalize across task durations, task types, or crowdsourcing platforms.

Involvement of Diverse Populations in Transfusion Medicine Research

Communities of color and diverse communities (eg, race, socioeconomic status, language, sexual orientation etc.) have not been recruited and enrolled equitably to participate in research studies in transfusion medicine. The exclusion of diverse communities in transfusion research can lead to health disparities lack of access to approved therapeutics and unequal allocation of interventions, resulting in missed opportunities to optimize health for individuals and communities. Involvement of diverse populations in research goes beyond inclusion as research subjects. Strategies should include specific studies on health conditions of importance to diverse communities with stable funding sources and specific funding announcements to develop projects led by diverse researchers, mentorship of diverse researchers, and openness to various ways of communicating research plans. Qualitative approaches and interdisciplinary collaboration should be supported to enhance inclusivity.

Community engagement and clinical trial diversity: Navigating barriers and co-designing solutions-A report from the "Health Equity through Diversity" seminar series

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, there has been increasing awareness of the lack of diversity among clinical trial participants. Equitable representation is key when testing novel therapeutic and non-therapeutic interventions to ensure safety and efficacy across populations. Unfortunately, in the United States (US), racial and ethnic minority populations continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials compared to their White counterparts.

METHODS

Two webinars in a four-part series, titled "Health Equity through Diversity," were held to discuss solutions for advancing health equity through diversifying clinical trials and addressing medical mistrust in communities. Each webinar was 1.5 hours long, beginning with panelist discussions followed by breakout rooms where moderators led discussions related to health equity and scribes recorded each room's conversations. The diverse groups of panelists included community members, civic representatives, clinician-scientists, and biopharmaceutical representatives. Scribe notes from discussions were collected and thematically analyzed to uncover the central themes.

RESULTS

The first two webinars were attended by 242 and 205 individuals, respectively. The attendees represented 25 US states, four countries outside the US, and shared various backgrounds including community members, clinician/researchers, government organizations, biotechnology/biopharmaceutical professionals, and others. Barriers to clinical trial participation are broadly grouped into the themes of access, awareness, discrimination and racism, and workforce diversity. Participants noted that innovative, community-engaged, co-designed solutions are essential.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite racial and ethnic minority groups making up nearly half of the US population, underrepresentation in clinical trials remains a critical challenge. The community engaged co-developed solutions detailed in this report to address access, awareness, discrimination and racism, and workforce diversity are critical to advancing clinical trial diversity.

Protecting the Vulnerable and Including the Under-Represented: IRB Practices and Attitudes

Since their inception, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been charged with protecting the vulnerable in research. More recently, attention has turned to whether IRBs also have a role to play in ensuring representative study samples and promoting the inclusion of historically under-represented groups. These two aims-protecting the vulnerable and including the under-represented-can pull in different directions, given the potential for overlap between the vulnerable and the under-represented. We conducted a pilot, online national survey of IRB Chairs to gauge attitudes and practices with regard to protecting the vulnerable and including the under-represented in research. We found that IRBs extend the concept of vulnerability to different groups across various contexts, are confident that they effectively protect vulnerable individuals in research, and believe that IRBs have a role to play in ensuring representative samples and the inclusion of under-represented groups.

"I Want to Know Everything ... ": The Return of Research Results and the Importance of Transparency in the Acceptability of Lumbar Punctures for African American Older Adults

BACKGROUND

Although African Americans experience the highest risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD), they are dramatically underrepresented in preclinical biomarker research. This is especially true for studies involving lumbar puncture as it may involve more perceived risk even for those participants who are otherwise supportive of research.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the unique concerns of African American participants regarding biomarker studies involving lumbar puncture who demonstrate support for AD research.

METHODS

Study participants were African American adults contacted through an AD research registry. We employed a novel method used to create hypothetical research studies varying on a set number of factors. The method is designed to collect potential patterns in decision making regarding research participation but differs from experimental vignette design in that the survey is administered with an accompanying qualitive interview to determine the meaning participants ascribe to factors independently and in conjunction with one another.

RESULTS

Sixty-one participants each reviewed three randomly selected research scenarios and created their "ideal" study involving lumbar puncture. Scenario variables included: disclosure of research results, racial and ethnic identity of the researcher, recruitment method, and amount of incentive.

CONCLUSION

Findings indicate that transparency in the return of AD research results to be the strongest driver of participation, followed by race of the researcher and amount of incentive. Recruitment method had limited impact on hypothetical decision making.

Sarcoidosis: Updates on therapeutic drug trials and novel treatment approaches

Sarcoidosis is a systemic granulomatous inflammatory disease of unknown etiology. It affects the lungs in over 90% of patients yet extra-pulmonary and multi-organ involvement is common. Spontaneous remission of disease occurs commonly, nonetheless, over 50% of patients will require treatment and up to 30% of patients will develop a chronic progressive non-remitting disease with marked pulmonary fibrosis leading to significant morbidity and death. Guidelines outlining an immunosuppressive treatment approach to sarcoidosis were recently published, however, the strength of evidence behind many of the guideline recommended drugs is weak. None of the drugs currently used for the treatment of sarcoidosis have been rigorously studied and prescription of these drugs is often based on off-label” indications informed by experience with other diseases. Indeed, only two medications [prednisone and repository corticotropin (RCI) injection] currently used in the treatment of sarcoidosis are approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. This situation results in significant reimbursement challenges especially for the more advanced (and often more effective) drugs that are favored for severe and refractory forms of disease causing an over-reliance on corticosteroids known to be associated with significant dose and duration dependent toxicities. This past decade has seen a renewed interest in developing new drugs and exploring novel therapeutic pathways for the treatment of sarcoidosis. Several of these trials are active randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed to recruit relatively large numbers of patients with a goal to determine the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of these new molecules and therapeutic approaches. While it is an exciting time, it is also necessary to exercise caution. Resources including research dollars and most importantly, patient populations available for trials are limited and thus necessitate that several of the challenges facing drug trials and drug development in sarcoidosis are addressed. This will ensure that currently available resources are judiciously utilized. Our paper reviews the ongoing and anticipated drug trials in sarcoidosis and addresses the challenges facing these and future trials. We also review several recently completed trials and draw lessons that should be applied in future.

The ethical anatomy of payment for research participants

In contrast to most publications on the ethics of paying research subjects, which start by identifying and analyzing major ethical concerns raised by the practice (in particular, risks of undue inducement and exploitation) and end with a set of—more or less well-justified—ethical recommendations for using payment schemes immune to these problems, this paper offers a systematic, principle-based ethical analysis of the practice. It argues that researchers have a prima facie moral obligation to offer payment to research subjects, which stems from the principle of social beneficence. This principle constitutes an ethical “spine” of the practice. Other ethical principles of research ethics (respect for autonomy, individual beneficence, and justice/fairness) make up an ethical “skeleton” of morally sound payment schemes by providing additional moral reasons for offering participants (1) recompense for reasonable expenses; and (2a) remuneration conceptualized as a reward for their valuable contribution, provided (i) it meets standards of equality, adequacy and non-exploitation, and (ii) it is not overly attractive (i.e., it does not constitute undue inducement for participation or retention, and does not encourage deceptive behaviors); or (2b) remuneration conceptualized as a market-driven price, provided (i) it is necessary and designed to help the study achieve its social and scientific goals, (ii) it does not reinforce wider social injustices and inequalities; (iii) it meets the requirement of non-exploitation; and (iv) it is not overly attractive. The principle of justice provides a strong ethical reason for not offering recompenses for lost wages (or loss of other reasonably expected profits).

Reviewing fair subject selection considerations for the unique case of post sequelae COVID-19 translational studies

Fair inclusion of research subjects is necessary to ensure that post-acute sequelae COVID-19 (PASC) research results benefit all members of society. Scientists should conduct research on a broad sample of individuals who represent clinically relevant factors influencing a disease. Without demographic diversity and sociological and environmental variability, research outputs are less likely to apply to different populations and would thus increase health disparities. The goal of this narrative literature review and ethical analysis is to apply fair selection criteria to PASC research studies. We briefly highlight the importance of fair subject selection in translational research and then identify features of PASC, as well as PASC research, that hinder fair inclusion of research participants. We will demonstrate that determining an adequate and representative sample is not simply a matter of ensuring greater diversity; rather, fairness requires a broader evaluation of risks, burdens, and benefits specific to underrepresented populations. We provide recommendations to ensure fair subject selection in PASC research and promote translation toward positive health outcomes for all individuals, including the most vulnerable.