Characteristics of clinical trials that require participants to be fluent in English

Clinical Trial Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To study racial and ethnic disparities in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Online review of all published MIGS RCTs in high-impact journals from 2012 to 2023.

PATIENTS

Journals included all first quartile obstetrics and gynecology journals, as well as The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The British Medical Journal, and The Journal of the American Medical Association. The National Institutes of Health's PubMed and the ClinicalTrials.gov websites were queried using the following search terms from the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology's certifying examination bulletin 2022 to obtain relevant trials: adenomyosis, adnexal surgery, abnormal uterine bleeding, cystectomy, endometriosis, fibroids, gynecology, hysterectomy, hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, leiomyoma, minimally invasive gynecology, myomectomy, ovarian cyst, and robotic surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

The US Census Bureau data were used to estimate the expected number of participants. We calculated the enrollment ratio (ER) of actual to expected participants for US trials with available race and ethnicity data.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 352 RCTs were identified. Of these, race and/or ethnicity data were available in 65 studies (18.5%). We analyzed the 46 studies that originated in the United States, with a total of 4645 participants. Of these RCTs, only 8 (17.4%) reported ethnicity in addition to race. When comparing published RCT data with expected proportions of participants, White participants were overrepresented (70.8% vs. 59.6%; ER, 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.52-1.81), as well as Black or African American participants (15.4% vs. 13.7%; ER, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.29). Hispanic (6.7% vs. 19.0%; ER, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.27-0.35), Asian (1.7% vs. 6.1%; ER, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.20-0.34), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (0.1% vs. 0.3%; ER, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.74), and Indian or Alaska Native participants (0.2% vs. 1.3%; ER, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.08-0.32) were underrepresented. When comparing race/ethnicity proportions in the 20 states where the RCTs were conducted, Black or African American participants were underrepresented.

CONCLUSION

In MIGS RCTs conducted in the United States, White and Black or African American participants are overrepresented compared with other races, and ethnicity is characterized in fewer than one-fifth of trials. Efforts should be made to improve racial and ethnic recruitment equity and reporting in future MIGS RCTs.

Disparities in clinical trial enrollment at a Canadian comprehensive cancer center: A 15-year retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Disparities in clinical trials (CTs) enrollment perpetuate inequities in treatment access and outcomes, but there is a paucity of Canadian data. The objective of this study was to examine disparities in cancer CT enrollment at a large Canadian comprehensive cancer center.

METHODS

Retrospective study of CT enrollment among new patient consultations from 2006 to 2019, with follow-up to 2021 (N = 154,880), with the primary outcome of enrollment as a binary variable. Factors associated with CT enrollment were evaluated using multivariable Bayesian hierarchical logistic regression with random effects for most responsible physician (MRP) and geography, adjusted for patient characteristics (sex, age, language, geography, and primary care provider [PCP]), area-level marginalization (residential instability, material deprivation, dependency, and ethnic concentration), disease (cancer site and stage), and MRP (department, sex, language, and training). A sensitivity analysis of the cumulative incidence of enrollment was conducted to account for differences in disease type and follow-up length.

RESULTS

CT enrollment was 11.2% overall, with a 15-year cumulative incidence of 18%. Lower odds of enrollment were observed in patients who were female (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.86), ≥65 years (AOR vs. <40, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.66), non-English speakers (0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.77), living ≥250 km away (AOR vs. <15 km, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.80), and without a PCP. Disease characteristics accounted for the largest proportion of observed variation (20.8%), with significantly greater odds of enrollment in patients with genitourinary cancers and late-stage disease.

CONCLUSION

Significant sociodemographic disparities were observed, suggesting the need for targeted strategies to increase diversity in access to cancer CTs in Canada.

Racial and ethnic disparities in psychological care for individuals with FASD: a dis/ability studies and critical race theory perspective toward improving prevention, assessment/diagnosis, and intervention

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD) are among the most common neurodevelopmental disorders and substantially impact public health. FASD can affect people of all races and ethnicities; however, there are important racial and ethnic disparities in alcohol-exposed pregnancy prevention, assessment and diagnosis of FASD, and interventions to support individuals with FASD and their families. In this article we use the Dis/Ability Studies and Critical Race Theory (Dis/Crit) framework to structure the exploration of disparities and possible solutions within these three areas (prevention, diagnosis, intervention). Dis/Crit provides a guide to understanding the intersection of dis/ability and race, while framing both as social constructs. Following the Dis/Crit framework, the systemic, historical, and contemporary racism and ableism present in psychological care is further discussed. We aim to elucidate these racial and ethnic disparities within the fields of psychology and neuropsychology through the Dis/Crit framework and provide potential points of action to reduce these disparities.

Demographic reporting and language exclusion in gynecologic oncology clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Participation in clinical trials may help mitigate disparate cancer outcomes. Thus, ensuring equitable access to clinical trials is a major priority for national cancer organizations.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine clinical trial eligibility criteria that may adversely affect the enrollment of underrepresented groups and assess the availability of demographic information in published gynecologic oncology studies.

STUDY DESIGN

ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for gynecologic oncology studies conducted between 1997 and 2021. Each study's inclusion and exclusion criteria were reviewed to determine whether demographic factors were used for enrollment screening. For published studies, demographic variables that were reported were identified. The expected clinical trial enrollment based on disease incidence and mortality was compared with the observed trial enrollment based on race.

RESULTS

There were 1597 gynecologic oncology studies: 883 (55%) from ovarian cancer studies, 336 (21%) from cervical cancer studies, 262 (17%) from uterine cancer studies, and 116 (7%) from multisite gynecologic oncology studies. Of the 581 published studies, 554 (95%) reported age, 363 (63%) reported race, and 171 (29%) reported ethnicities. Cervical cancer studies were most likely to report demographic information, including race (P=.026) and ethnicity (P<.001). During the study period, 189 studies (12%) excluded patients based on the language spoken. Industry-sponsored trials (odds ratio, 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.30) and organization-sponsored trials (odds ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.73) were less likely to exclude patients because of language than investigator-initiated trials. A minority of patients (37%) in cervical cancer trials were of White race, compared with 85% of patients in uterine cancer trials and 82% of patients in ovarian cancer trials.

CONCLUSION

Over the last 3 decades, 1 in 10 gynecologic oncology trials excluded patients because of language. Race and ethnicity were reported in more than half of the available studies. Initiatives to increase transparency in recruiting underrepresented patients and reporting demographic data are urgently needed.

Exclusion of Families Who Speak Languages Other than English from Federally Funded Pediatric Trials

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether individuals in the United States who speak languages other than English (LOE) are excluded from federally funded pediatric clinical trials and whether such trials adhere to the National Institutes of Health policy regarding inclusion of members of minority groups.

STUDY DESIGN

Using ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified all completed, federally funded, US-based trials inclusive of children ≤17 and focused on one of 4 common chronic childhood conditions (asthma, mental health, obesity, and dental caries) as of June 18, 2019. We reviewed ClinicalTrials.gov online content, as well as published manuscripts linked to ClinicalTrials.gov entries, to abstract information about language-related exclusion criteria. Trials were deemed to exclude LOE participants/caregivers if explicit statements regarding exclusion were identified in the study protocol or published manuscript.

RESULTS

Of total, 189 trials met inclusion criteria. Two-thirds (67%) did not address multilingual enrollment. Of the 62 trials that did, 82% excluded LOE individuals. No trials addressed the enrollment of non-English, non-Spanish-speaking individuals. In 93 trials with nonmissing data on ethnicity, Latino individuals comprised 31% of participants in trials that included LOE individuals and 14% of participants in trials that excluded LOE individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Federally funded pediatric trials in the United States do not adequately address multilingual enrollment, a seeming violation of federal and contractual requirements for accommodation of language barriers by entities receiving federal funding.

Trial Participation and Outcomes Among English-Speaking and Spanish-Speaking Patients With Appendicitis Randomized to Antibiotics: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Spanish-speaking participants are underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting study generalizability and contributing to ongoing health inequity. The Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial intentionally included Spanish-speaking participants.

Objective

To describe trial participation and compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes among Spanish-speaking and English-speaking participants with acute appendicitis randomized to antibiotics.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, a pragmatic randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in adult patients with imaging-confirmed appendicitis enrolled at 25 centers across the US from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. The trial was conducted in English and Spanish. All 776 participants randomized to antibiotics are included in this analysis. The data were analyzed from November 15, 2021, through August 24, 2022.

Intervention

Randomization to a 10-day course of antibiotics or appendectomy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Trial participation, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire scores (higher scores indicating a better health status), rate of appendectomy, treatment satisfaction, decisional regret, and days of work missed. Outcomes are also reported for a subset of participants that were recruited from the 5 sites with a large proportion of Spanish-speaking participants.

Results

Among eligible patients 476 of 1050 Spanish speakers (45%) and 1076 of 3982 of English speakers (27%) consented, comprising the 1552 participants who underwent 1:1 randomization (mean age, 38.0 years; 976 male [63%]). Of the 776 participants randomized to antibiotics, 238 were Spanish speaking (31%). Among Spanish speakers randomized to antibiotics, the rate of appendectomy was 22% (95% CI, 17%-28%) at 30 days and 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) at 1 year, while in English speakers, these rates were 20% (95% CI, 16%-23%) at 30 days and 42% (95% CI 38%-47%) at 1 year. Mean EQ-5D scores were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.95) among Spanish speakers and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.93) among English speakers. Symptom resolution at 30 days was reported by 68% (95% CI, 61%-74%) of Spanish speakers and 69% (95% CI, 64%-73%) of English speakers. Spanish speakers missed 6.69 (95% CI, 5.51-7.87) days of work on average, while English speakers missed 3.76 (95% CI, 3.20-4.32) days. Presentation to the emergency department or urgent care, hospitalization, treatment dissatisfaction, and decisional regret were low for both groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

A high proportion of Spanish speakers participated in the CODA trial. Clinical and most patient-reported outcomes were similar for English- and Spanish-speaking participants treated with antibiotics. Spanish speakers reported more days of missed work.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Healthcare experiences of patients with Down syndrome from primarily Spanish-speaking households

We report on the health care experiences of individuals with Down syndrome (DS) from families who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Data were collected through three methods: (1) a nationally distributed, 20-item survey, (2) two focus groups with seven family caregivers of individuals with DS who self-identified as living in primarily Spanish speaking households, and (3) 20 interviews with primary care providers (PCPs) who care for patients who are underrepresented minorities. Standard summary statistics were used to analyze the quantitative survey results. Focus group and interview transcripts, as well as an open-ended response question in the survey, were analyzed using qualitative coding methods to identify key themes. Both caregivers and PCPs described how language barriers make giving and receiving quality care difficult. Caregivers additionally described condescending, discriminatory treatment within the medical system and shared feelings of caregiver stress and social isolation. Challenges to care experienced by families of individuals with DS are compounded for Spanish-speaking families, where the ability to build trust with providers and in the health care system may be compromised by cultural and language differences, systemic issues (lack of time or inability to craft more nuanced schedules so that patients with higher needs are offered more time), mistrust, and sometimes, overt racism. Building this trust is critical to improve access to information, care options, and research opportunities, especially for this community that depends on their clinicians and nonprofit groups as trusted messengers. More study is needed to understand how to better reach out to these communities through primary care clinician networks and nonprofit organizations.

Traversing the Aging Research and Health Equity Divide: Toward Intersectional Frameworks of Research Justice and Participation

Meaningful reductions in racial and ethnic inequities in chronic diseases of aging remain unlikely without major advancements in the inclusion of minoritized populations in aging research. While sparse, studies investigating research participation disparities have predominantly focused on individual-level factors and behavioral change, overlooking the influence of study design, structural factors, and social determinants of health on participation. This is also reflected in conventional practices that consistently fail to address established participation barriers, such as study requirements that impose financial, transportation, linguistic, and/or logistical barriers that disproportionately burden participants belonging to minoritized populations. These shortcomings not only risk exacerbating distrust toward research and researchers, but also introduce significant selection biases, diminishing our ability to detect differential mechanisms of risk, resilience, and response to interventions across subpopulations. This forum article examines the intersecting factors that drive both health inequities in aging and disparate participation in aging research among minoritized populations. Using an intersectional, social justice, and emancipatory lens, we characterize the role of social determinants, historical contexts, and contemporaneous structures in shaping research accessibility and inclusion. We also introduce frameworks to accelerate transformative theoretical approaches to fostering equitable inclusion of minoritized populations in aging research.

Minority Enrollment in Phase II and III Clinical Trials in Urologic Oncology

PURPOSE

Proportionate minority representation in clinical trials is an important step toward addressing health care inequities. Given the paucity of data on this topic in urologic oncology, we sought to quantify the enrollment of minority patients in clinical trials studying prostate, kidney, and bladder/urothelial cancers.

METHODS

The ClincialTrials.gov database was queried for completed phase II and III interventional trials in prostate, kidney, and bladder cancers. The SEER database was used to calculate the US prevalence of these genitourinary cancers. Representation quotients (RQ) were calculated to describe the relative proportion of each racial/ethnic group enrolled in clinical trials over the proportion of persons from each group among national cancer cases by cancer type.

RESULTS

Of 341 trials that met initial eligibility criteria, only 169 (49.7%) reported data on race or ethnicity. Aggregate RQs from 2000 to 2017 showed that White patients were continually over-represented in trials for all cancer types. Black and Asian patients were poorly represented across all cancer types. When stratified by 3-year increments, the RQs remained stable for all races, from 2000 to 2017. When stratified by ethnicity, Hispanic patients were under-represented across all cancer types in the study period. When examining representation by funding source, we found that US government-funded clinical trials proportionally enroll the most diverse patient populations over those funded by academic institutions and industry. Interestingly, more than 50% of the trials examined did not report race nor ethnicity, highlighting a crucial flaw in investigator compliance with federal clinical trial mandates.

CONCLUSION

Clinical trials targeting prostate, kidney, and bladder cancers continue to under-represent racial/ethnic minority patients. On the basis of the incidence of these cancers within minority populations, efforts should focus on creating racially and ethnically inclusive cancer research.

How Should Representation of Subjects With LEP Become More Equitable in Clinical Trials?

Underrepresentation of individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) who speak Spanish is ongoing in phase 3 biomedical clinical trials and exacerbates health inequity. This article suggests strategies for increasing representation of Spanish speakers in clinical rials by emphasizing the importance of early engagement with Spanish language communities, inclusive participant recruitment, and collaborative trial design and implementation. Although investigators and institutions administering government-funded research must meet federal requirements for language assistance, journal editors, peer reviewers, institutional review board members, academic health centers, and all beneficiaries of the biomedical and behavioral research enterprise in the United States must motivate linguistic inclusion.

Health Equity Tourism: Ravaging the Justice Landscape

As the long-standing and ubiquitous racial inequities of the United States reached national attention, the public health community has witnessed the rise of “health equity tourism”. This phenomenon is the process of previously unengaged investigators pivoting into health equity research without developing the necessary scientific expertise for high-quality work. In this essay, we define the phenomenon and provide an explanation of the antecedent conditions that facilitated its development. We also describe the consequences of health equity tourism – namely, recapitulating systems of inequity within the academy and the dilution of a landscape carefully curated by scholars who have demonstrated sustained commitments to equity research as a primary scientific discipline and praxis. Lastly, we provide a set of principles that can guide novice equity researchers to becoming community members rather than mere tourists of health equity.

Evaluating the frequency of English language requirements in clinical trial eligibility criteria: A systematic analysis using ClinicalTrials.gov

BACKGROUND

A number of prior studies have demonstrated that research participants with limited English proficiency in the United States are routinely excluded from clinical trial participation. Systematic exclusion through study eligibility criteria that require trial participants to be able to speak, read, and/or understand English affects access to clinical trials and scientific generalizability. We sought to establish the frequency with which English language proficiency is required and, conversely, when non-English languages are affirmatively accommodated in US interventional clinical trials for adult populations.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used the advanced search function on ClinicalTrials.gov specifying interventional studies for adults with at least 1 site in the US. In addition, we used these search criteria to find studies with an available posted protocol. A computer program was written to search for evidence of English or Spanish language requirements, or the posted protocol, when available, was manually read for these language requirements. Of the 14,367 clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between 1 January 2019 and 1 December 2020 that met baseline search criteria, 18.98% (95% CI 18.34%-19.62%; n = 2,727) required the ability to read, speak, and/or understand English, and 2.71% (95% CI 2.45%-2.98%; n = 390) specifically mentioned accommodation of translation to another language. The remaining trials in this analysis and the following sub-analyses did not mention English language requirements or accommodation of languages other than English. Of 2,585 federally funded clinical trials, 28.86% (95% CI 27.11%-30.61%; n = 746) required English language proficiency and 4.68% (95% CI 3.87%-5.50%; n = 121) specified accommodation of other languages; of the 5,286 industry-funded trials, 5.30% (95% CI 4.69%-5.90%; n = 280) required English and 0.49% (95% CI 0.30%-0.69%; n = 26) accommodated other languages. Trials related to infectious disease were less likely to specify an English requirement than all registered trials (10.07% versus 18.98%; relative risk [RR] = 0.53; 95% CI 0.44-0.64; p < 0.001). Trials related to COVID-19 were also less likely to specify an English requirement than all registered trials (8.18% versus 18.98%; RR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.33-0.56; p < 0.001). Trials with a posted protocol (n = 366) were more likely than all registered clinical trials to specify an English requirement (36.89% versus 18.98%; RR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.69-2.23; p < 0.001). A separate analysis of studies with posted protocols in 4 therapeutic areas (depression, diabetes, breast cancer, and prostate cancer) demonstrated that clinical trials related to depression were the most likely to require English (52.24%; 95% CI 40.28%-64.20%). One limitation of this study is that the computer program only searched for the terms "English" and "Spanish" and may have missed evidence of other language accommodations. Another limitation is that we did not differentiate between requirements to read English, speak English, understand English, and be a native English speaker; we grouped these requirements together in the category of English language requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

A meaningful percentage of US interventional clinical trials for adults exclude individuals who cannot read, speak, and/or understand English, or are not native English speakers. To advance more inclusive and generalizable research, funders, sponsors, institutions, investigators, institutional review boards, and others should prioritize translating study materials and eliminate language requirements unless justified either scientifically or ethically.

Facilitators, Challenges, and Messaging Strategies for Hispanic/Latino Populations Participating in Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias Clinical Research: A Literature Review

Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease-related dementias (AD/ADRD) disproportionally affect Hispanic and Latino populations, yet Hispanics/Latinos are substantially underrepresented in AD/ADRD clinical research. Diverse inclusion in trials is an ethical and scientific imperative, as underrepresentation reduces the ability to generalize study findings and treatments across populations most affected by a disease. This paper presents findings from a narrative literature review (N = 210) of the current landscape of Hispanic/Latino participation in clinical research, including the challenges, facilitators, and communication channels to conduct culturally appropriate outreach efforts to increase awareness and participation of Hispanics/Latinos in AD/ADRD clinical research studies. Many challenges identified were systemic in nature: lack of culturally relevant resources; staffing that does not represent participants' cultures/language; eligibility criteria that disproportionately excludes Hispanics/Latinos; and too few studies available in Hispanic/Latino communities. The paper also details facilitators and messaging strategies to improve engagement and interest among Hispanics/Latinos in AD/ADRD research, starting with approaches that recognize and address the heterogeneity of the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, and then, tailor outreach activities and programs to address their diverse needs and circumstances. The needs identified in this article represent longstanding failures to improve engagement and interest among Hispanics/Latinos in AD/ADRD research; we discuss how the field can move forward learning from the experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Health Communication and Decision Making about Vaccine Clinical Trials during a Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified the importance of clinical trials for finding a safe and effective vaccine to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. Although communication about vaccines and vaccine hesitancy were challenges long before COVID-19, the twin facts of a pandemic and an "infodemic" of health information, misinformation, and disinformation have raised new challenges for vaccine-related communication and decision-making. The goal of this commentary is to highlight strategies to improve communication and decision-making for adults considering participation in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. First, I present a general conceptual model for clinical trial participation that can be applied to various vaccine and other clinical trial contexts. Next, I introduce the ASK (Assume, Seek, Know) approach for enhancing clinical trial participation: (1) assume that all patients will want to know their options, (2) seek the counsel of stakeholders, and (3) know your numbers. The ideas presented in this commentary are intended to enhance vaccine-specific clinical trial communication, decision-making, and literacy, while dually offering strategies and resources that may help reduce vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake over time.

Increasing accrual of minority patients in breast cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Black and Hispanic patients participate in clinical trials at lower rates than white patients nationally; lack of diversity in clinical trials prevents appropriate safety and efficacy testing of new treatments in these populations.

METHODS

The Oncology Welcomes New Haven into Trials (OWN IT) initiative at the Yale Cancer Center used a multi-tiered approach to improve breast cancer minority clinical trial accrual through community focus groups, ongoing community outreach, institutional executive council representation, grand rounds presentation, and didactic lectures with healthcare providers. Eligibility criteria of breast cancer trials at Smilow Cancer Center were reviewed using clinicaltrials.gov. Also, an anonymous, 5-min survey was conducted at regular visits with Smilow Breast Center patients to gauge awareness of and access to clinical trials. Survey data were compared to the Yale Cancer Center Clinical Trials Office, Connecticut Tumor Registry, and U.S. Census records. Two-tailed Fisher's tests were used for all analyses.

RESULTS

There was a significant increase in the number of minority patients who participated in clinical trials at Smilow Cancer Center from 2016 (95/750) to 2018 (155/944) (p = 0.0325). Two hundred patients participated in the survey; response rate 92%. There was no significant difference in the rate at which patients were invited to participate in clinical trials or the rate at which they declined to participate based on race or ethnicity. Black and Hispanic patients were significantly less likely to be aware of clinical trials than white patients (p < .001). The review of eligibility criteria showed that over half of the studies reviewed had restrictions regarding increased liver function tests, and many restricted the participation of patients with other chronic conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Low participation in clinical trials among black and Hispanic patients is likely multifaceted. This study indicated that there are likely structural factors at work which can be modified with institutional effort. The role of patient education regarding clinical trials and accrual should be studied further as should eligibility criteria as a potential barrier to participation.

Impact of migrancy on cancer clinical trial participation: Factors associated with approach and consent in Australian-born versus migrant groups

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study compared rates of clinical trial participation and perceived adequacy of information provided prior to consent in migrant and Australian-born cancer patients, and explored factors associated with being approached and agreeing to participate.

METHODS

We utilized data from a larger cross-sectional survey assessing disparities in patient-reported outcomes in Chinese, Arabic, or Greek migrant versus English-speaking Australian-born cancer patients. Participants completed a questionnaire eliciting demographic and disease details, communication challenges, whether invited and consented to a clinical trial, and if so, adequacy of information received.

RESULTS

A total of 566 migrants (142 Arabic, 251 Chinese, and 173 Greek) and 270 English-speaking Australian-born patients participated. Overall, 25% were approached to participate in clinical trials, and of these, 74% consented. Migrants were significantly less likely to consent if asked to participate in clinical trials (P = .009), and fewer migrants (67.2%) reported receiving sufficient information prior to deciding on trial participation (82.1%; P = .04). Perceived understanding of the health system (odds ratio [OR] = 0.71), confidence in speaking (OR = 0.75), ability to understand English (OR = 0.80), and communicate with doctors in English (OR = 0.81) were significantly related to patients' likelihood of being approached to participate in clinical trials. Perceived understanding of the health system (OR = 0.66) was significantly associated with patients agreeing to take part in cancer clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings identified that barriers to migrants' self-reported participation in clinical trials include perceived lack of understanding of the health system and low English proficiency. Strategies that address these barriers are needed to increase migrant patients' participation in cancer clinical trials.

Tool for the Meaningful Consideration of Language Barriers in Qualitative Health Research

Individuals who experience language barriers are largely excluded as participants from health research, resulting in gaps in knowledge that have implications for the development of equitable policies, tools, and strategies. Drawing on the existing literature and on their collective experience conducting occupational health research in contexts of language barriers, the authors propose a tool to assist qualitative researchers and representatives from funding agencies and ethics review boards with the meaningful consideration of language barriers in research. There remain gaps and debates with respect to the relevant ethical and methodological guidance set forth by funding agencies and institutions and proposed in the scientific literature. This article adds to knowledge in this area by contributing our experiences, observations, and recommendations, including around the issue of conducting research in contexts of more or less linguistic diversity.

Cancer Health Literacy and Willingness to Participate in Cancer Research and Donate Bio-Specimens

Although it has been well documented that poor health literacy is associated with limited participation in cancer clinical trials, studies assessing the relationships between cancer health literacy (CHL) and participation in research among diverse populations are lacking. In this study, we examined the relationship between CHL and willingness to participate in cancer research and/or donate bio-specimens (WPRDB) among African Americans, Latinos, and Whites. Participants completed the Cancer Health Literacy Test and the Multidimensional Cancer Literacy Questionnaire. Total-scale and subscale scores, frequencies, means, and distributions were computed. Analyses of variance, the Bonferroni procedure, and the Holm method were used to examine significant differences among groups. Cronbach’s alphas estimated scales’ internal consistency reliability. Significant interactions were found between race/ethnicity, gender, and CHL on WPRDB scales and subscale scores, even after education and age were taken into account. Our study confirms that CHL plays an important role that should be considered and researched further. The majority of participants were more willing to participate in non-invasive research studies (surveys, interviews, and training) or collection of bio-specimens (saliva, check cells, urine, and blood) and in studies led by their own healthcare providers, and local hospitals and universities. However, participants were less willing to participate in more-invasive studies requiring them to take medications, undergo medical procedures or donate skin/tissues. We conclude that addressing low levels of CHL and using community-based participatory approaches to address the lack of knowledge and trust about cancer research among diverse populations may increase not only their willingness to participate in research and donate bio-specimens, but may also have a positive effect on actual participation rates.

Temporal trends and characteristics of clinical trials for which only one racial or ethnic group is eligible

BACKGROUND

Increasing diversity in clinical trials may be worthwhile. We examined clinical trials that restricted eligibility to a single race or ethnicity.

METHODS

We reviewed 19,246 trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov through January 2013. We mapped trial ZIP-codes to U.S. Census and American Community Survey data. The outcome was whether trials required participants to be from a single racial or ethnic group.

RESULTS

In adjusted analyses, the odds of trials restricting eligibility to a single race/ethnicity increased by 4% per year (95% CI 1.01-1.08, p = .024). Behavioral (5.79% with single race/ethnicity requirements), skin-related (4.49%), and Vitamin D (6.14%) studies had higher rates of single race/ethnicity requirements. Many other trial-specific characteristics, such as funding agency and region of the U.S. in which the trial opened, were associated with eligibility restrictions. In terms of neighborhood characteristics, studies with single race eligibility requirements were more likely to be located in ZIP-codes with greater percentages of those self-reporting the characteristic. For example, 35.2% (SD = 24.9%) of the population self-reported themselves as Black or African American in ZIP-codes with trials requiring participants to be Black/African American, but only 5.9% (SD = 6.9%) self-reported themselves as Black/African American in ZIP-codes with trials that required Asian ethnicity. In ZIP-codes with trials requiring Asian ethnicity, 24.6% (SD = 16.2%) self-reported as Asian. In ZIP-codes with trials requiring Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, 33.3% (SD = 28.5%) self-reported as Hispanic/Latino. Neighborhood level poverty rates and reduced English language ability were also associated with more single race eligibility requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected fields, there has been a modest temporal increase in single race/ethnicity inclusion requirements. Some studies may not fall under regulatory purview and hence may be less likely to include diverse samples. Conversely, some eligibility requirements may be related to health disparities research. Future work should examine whether targeted enrollment criteria facilitates development of personalized medicine or reduces trial access.

Racial Differences Among Factors Associated with Participation in Clinical Research Trials

OBJECTIVE

To identify whether racial differences exist among various factors associated with patients' decision to participate in clinical research trials.

METHODS

A self-administered, IRB-approved survey was utilized with inclusion criteria requiring subjects to be 18 years of age or older, having active patient status and ability to complete the survey without assistance. Subjects were asked to rate potential influential motivators, barriers, and facilitators on a "no influence" (0) to "most influence" (4) scale for participation in research that tests a new drug or device. Kruskal-Wallis testing was used to identify factors significantly associated with race.

RESULTS

Analysis included 1643 surveys: 949 (57.8 %) Caucasian; 217 (13.2 %) African-American; 317 (19.3 %) Hispanic; 62 (3.8 %) Multiracial; and 98 (6.0 %) "Other" minorities. Statistically significant differences (p ≤ .02) by race were found for five out of ten motivating factors. "How well the research study is explained to me" had the highest mean value for all races except other minorities, for whom "Knowledge learned from my participation will benefit someone in the future" scored highest. "Risk of unknown side-effects" was the greatest barrier for all races.

CONCLUSION

Racial differences exist not only between Caucasians and Minorities for the factors associated with their clinical trial participation, but also among different minority races themselves. To promote diversity in research, recruitment strategies for each individual race should be customized based on what matters to the target population.