No abstract

Objective Substantial disparities exist in clinical trial participation, which is problematic in diseases such as lupus that disproportionately affect racial/ethnic minority populations. Our objective was to examine the effectiveness of an online educational course aiming to train medical providers to refer Black and Latino patients to lupus clinical trials (LCTs). Methods The American College of Rheumatology's Materials to Increase Minority Involvement in Clinical Trials (MIMICT) study used an online, randomized, 2‐group, pretest/posttest design with medical and nursing providers of multiple specialties. We exposed intervention group participants to an education course, while the control group participants received no intervention. Controlling for the effects of participant characteristics, including specialty, and professional experience with lupus, we modeled relationships among exposure to the education course and changes in knowledge, attitudes, self‐efficacy, and intentions to refer Black and Latino patients to LCTs. We also examined education course satisfaction. Results Compared to the control group, the intervention group had significantly higher posttest scores for knowledge, self‐efficacy, and intentions to refer Black and Latino patients to LCTs. Both medical and nursing trained intervention group participants had significantly higher mean posttest scores for knowledge and intentions to refer compared to the medical and nursing trained control group participants. Attitude was insignificant in analysis. The online education course, which received a favorable summary score, indicated that satisfaction and intentions to refer were strongly and positively correlated. Conclusion The MIMICT education course is an effective method to educate medical providers about LCTs and to improve their intentions to refer Black and Latino patients.

No abstract

Background: Research has consistently shown that female adolescents have experienced worse pandemic-related stress compared to males. A parent’s ability to accurately track their child’s stress levels likely increases the likelihood a problem is acknowledged and addressed as it arises. Therefore, we assessed how parents’ estimation of their adolescent children’s self-reported pandemic-related stress related to the child’s gender. Methods: We performed cross-sectional secondary analysis using the nationally representative Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study datasets from Wave 5 (2018-2019) and Wave 5.5 (July 2020-December 2020) among respondents aged 12-17. We conducted four logistic regression models to explore the relationship between child gender and parental underestimation of their child’s pandemic-related stress. We controlled for sociodemographic factors and personal characteristics associated with pandemic-related stress including, whether the adolescent had been diagnosed with COVID-19, the extent social distancing measures were practiced, school performance, previous year anxiety, depression, and overall mental health ratings, sleep trouble, TV screen time, and past year substance use. Results: Even when controlling for these factors, female child gender was significantly and positively associated with parental underestimation of their child’s pandemic-related stress (Underestimated stress: OR = 1.25 95 % CI = [1.07-1.46]). Conclusions: Informing parents that female adolescents were significantly more likely to have their levels of pandemic-related stress underestimated at home may encourage parents to take extra effort when checking in on their daughters’ mental health needs, which in turn may lead to more female adolescents receiving the familial and professional support they require.

No abstract