Background
The study of disparities in minority recruitment to cancer clinical trials has focused primarily on inquiries among minority populations. Yet, very little is known about the perceptions of individuals actively involved in minority recruitment to clinical trials within cancer centers. Therefore, we sought to assess the perspectives of cancer center clinical and research personnel on barriers and facilitators to minority recruitment.
Methods
We conducted 91 qualitative interviews at 5 U.S. cancer centers among 4 stakeholder groups: cancer center leaders, principal investigators, research staff, and referring clinicians. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Qualitative analyses of response data was focused on identifying prominent themes related to barriers and facilitators to minority recruitment.
Results
The perspectives of the 4 stakeholder groups were largely overlapping with some variations based on their unique roles in minority recruitment. Four prominent themes were identified: 1) Racial and ethnic minorities are influenced by varying degrees of skepticism related to trial participation; 2) Potential minority participants often face multi-level barriers that preclude them from being offered an opportunity to participate in a clinical trial; 3) Facilitators at both the institutional- and participant-level potentially encourage minority recruitment; and 4) Variation between internal and external trial referral procedures may limit clinical trial opportunities for racial and ethnic minorities.
Conclusions
Multi-level approaches are needed to address barriers and optimize facilitators within cancer centers to enhance minority recruitment for cancer clinical trials.
Results indicated that the CES-D appears to be as valid for low-income, minority women as for any other demographic group examined in the literature. Despite similar validity, the CES-D appears to be inadequate for routine screening in this population. The positive predictive value remains very low no matter which cut-scores are used. The costs of the false positive rates could be prohibitive, especially in similar public primary care settings.
Cervical cancer is the second most common female tumor worldwide, and its incidence is disproportionately high (>80%) in the developing world. In the United States, in which Papanicolaou (Pap) tests have reduced the annual incidence to approximately 11,000 cervical cancers, >60% of cases are reported to occur in medically underserved populations as part of a complex of diseases linked to poverty, race/ethnicity, and/or health disparities. Because carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) infections cause virtually all cervical cancer, 2 new approaches for cervical cancer prevention have emerged: 1) HPV vaccination to prevent infections in younger women (aged 18 years) and 2) carcinogenic HPV detection in older women (aged 30 years). Together, HPV vaccination and testing, if used in an age-appropriate manner, have the potential to transform cervical cancer prevention, particularly among underserved populations. Nevertheless, significant barriers of access, acceptability, and adoption to any cervical cancer prevention strategy remain. Without understanding and addressing these obstacles, these promising new tools for cervical cancer prevention may be futile. In the current study, the delivery of cervical cancer prevention strategies to these US populations that experience a high cervical cancer burden (African-American women in South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi; Haitian immigrant women in Miami; Hispanic women in the US-Mexico Border; Sioux/Native American women in the Northern Plains; white women in the Appalachia; and Vietnamese-American women in Pennsylvania and New Jersey) is reviewed. The goal was to inform future research and outreach efforts to reduce the burden of cervical cancer in underserved populations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.