Abstract
Background
Clinical trials test new ways to prevent, detect, diagnose, or treat diseases. Researchers have found that minority patients are willing to participate in clinical trials, yet these patients have barriers which hinder their access to trials.
Methods
To explore African American women's participation in breast cancer clinical trials, eight focus groups were conducted with breast cancer patients, family members/care givers, religious leaders, and healthcare providers to gather information on the perspectives and opinions on the topic. The focus group conversations were transcribed, and transcripts were imported into QSR International's NVivo 10 software. The transcripts were organized into folders based on four categories. The content analysis performed was based on recordings and notes.
Results
The following themes were generated as a result of conducting these focus groups and gathering information on the perspectives and opinions about participating in clinical trials, based on the groups who participated: Promoting participation in research; Personal experience with cancer; Support and support services; Awareness, knowledge, and experience with clinical trials; Providers' roles in clinical trials.
Conclusion
The data collected in this study present several actionable themes that, if addressed by individual researchers and the medical community at large, could increase participation in clinical trials by African American patients. They also provide a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the factors influencing African American patients' decisions around participating in clinical trials.
Keywords: Focus groups, Clinical trials, African americans, Cancer disparities, Breast cancer
1. Introduction
Disparities impact African American women across the breast cancer spectrum with respect to access and utilization of screening and preventive services, clinical care subsequent to breast cancer diagnosis, and long-term follow-up care and clinical management for Black breast cancer survivors [1]. Racial differences in breast cancer survival can be explained by poorer health of Black patients at diagnosis, more advanced disease at time of diagnosis, more severe biological features of the disease, and more co-morbid conditions [2], [3]. The data collected by Silber et al. to determine if racial disparities in breast cancer survival were attributable primarily to differences in presentation characteristics at diagnosis or subsequent treatment provide evidence that Black patients diagnosed with breast cancer had previously received less adequate primary care compared to White counterparts. Also, Blacks were diagnosed with more advanced disease and with larger tumors [4].
Clinical trials test new ways to prevent, detect, diagnose, or treat diseases. Individuals who take part in cancer clinical trials have an opportunity to contribute to scientists' knowledge about cancer and to help in the development of improved cancer treatments. They also receive state-of-the-art care from cancer experts [5]. Advances in breast cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment are the direct result of patient involvement in therapeutic and non-therapeutic clinical trials. The success of these trials depends on enrolling the statistically required number of participants and keeping them in the study until completion. Despite increases in the numbers of new clinical research initiatives and trials open to accrual, only 2–3% of women with breast cancer ever enroll in a clinical trial [6]. Poor recruitment to clinical trials leads to delays in study completion and slows down the approval of more effective cancer treatments for patients with all stages of cancer [7].
Increasing Black patients' participation in cancer clinical trials is particularly important because of their lower survival rate. Critical to the conduct of any clinical trial is identifying the right group of people to include in the study. Most clinical trials conducted in the U.S. suffer from a pronounced lack of diversity. And, too often, there is a lack of appreciation of cultural and genetic factors particular to African American and other ethnic communities. This diversity gap can lead to sub-optimal development of new medicines and can further exacerbate minority health disparities. While African Americans represent 12% of the total U.S. population, they comprise just 5% of clinical trial participants [8].
Researchers have found that minority patients are willing to participate in clinical trials, but that these patients have barriers which hinder their access [9]. Therefore, further exploration of the potential barriers and motivating factors in regard to participation in clinical trials is essential to increasing participation and retention rates, and ultimately, to reducing disparities in quality healthcare and treatment options.
The purpose of our focus group study was to explore African American patients' participation in breast cancer clinical trials. To accomplish this, we conducted formative data-focused groups to investigate different thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs associated with cancer clinical trials from various viewpoints.
2. Methods
Study design. We conducted eight focus groups in 2014 and 2015, made up of Black patients with breast cancer, patient family members/caregivers, religious leaders, and healthcare providers from Washington Cancer Institute (WCI) (52 participants = 12 patients, 21 faith-based leaders, 11 healthcare providers, 8 family caregivers).
Eligibility. Participants who met the following eligibility criteria were appropriate to take part in the study:
-
•
Patient: Self-identified Black or African American (to include African, Caribbean, West Indian ancestry, or any other persons self-identifying as Black); 2) aged 18 years or older with breast cancer diagnosis, receiving treatment at WCI; 3) ability to communicate verbally in English, male or female, ability to comply with all study procedures.
-
•
Family member/caregiver: A family member, spouse, significant other, or caregiver to a patient diagnosed with breast cancer who is receiving treatment at WCI.
-
•
Provider: Healthcare provider practicing at WCI.
-
•
Religious leader: Religious leader (to include pastor, health ministry member, deacon, or any other position closely involved with parishioners) at a church in the District of Columbia Metropolitan Area.
Recruitment. Fifty nine percent of participants screened for eligibility participated in the focus groups. Patients were recruited through medical/oncology clinics and from staff referrals. Recruiters met with patients before or after the oncologist saw them for an appointment. They introduced and explained Focus on You, confirmed eligibility, invited participation, conducted the informed consent process, and obtained written informed consent from those who wished to participate. Patients were assured that consenting to this study would not imply that they were consenting to a therapeutic clinical trial. Family members/caregivers were approached as they accompanied their loved ones to their appointments. Religious leaders were referred by patients and WCI staff, and were approached about participating in person, via email, or by telephone. Providers were approached about participating on site at WCI and via email communication.
Focus group implementation. Prior to conducting the focus groups, WCI staff (the project leader and research assistant) were trained in focus group methods and facilitation. The training was coordinated by an experienced facilitator who conducts qualitative training with academicians and community members. The patient and provider focus groups occurred on site at WCI, while the religious leader focus groups occurred at the respective churches. A trained moderator facilitated each focus group. Focus groups were recorded and a note-taker was present to capture hand-written notes. A moderator who was not employed by the Washington Cancer Institute conducted both provider focus groups to avoid any conflict of interests and to allow providers to feel comfortable participating. These focus groups took place at WCI.
The interview guides for each focus group cohort used by the WCI team were developed during the initial training session. The guides consisted of prompts/questions to solicit responses from the groups. An introduction and overview script was developed to assist the facilitator and moderator in properly introducing the focus group and cover the purpose, logistics, goals, and ground rules.
The moderator asked participants a series of questions/probes using a semi-structured interview guide [10]. The guides were tailored to each focus group category (See Table 1). Sample questions included:
-
•
Patients: “What is a clinical trial or clinical research?” and “Do you think it is important to include Blacks in clinical trials or clinical research?”
-
•
Providers: “How often do you talk to your patients about clinical trials or clinical research?” and “Do you think your attitudes/beliefs about clinical trials play a role in your patients' decision to participate in research?”
-
•
Family members/caregivers: “In your opinion, what do you think are some of the advantages and disadvantages of clinical research?” and “If your family member was asked to participate in a clinical trial trying to find new and better treatment for breast cancer, would you encourage them participate?”
-
•
Religious leaders: “Do you think you and/or other leaders in the church have an impact on your members' healthcare choices and decisions, including participating in clinical research?” and “What do you think can be done to encourage more Blacks to participate in clinical research?”
Table 1.
Categories of participants.
| Group | Description | Number of participants in each focus group |
|---|---|---|
| Faith Group | Participants were faith-based leaders | aFG 1 n = 9, FG 2 n = 12 |
| Family and Caregivers | Participants were either family members of or caregivers of breast cancer patients | FG 1 n = 3, FG 2 n = 5 |
| Patients | Participants were undergoing treatment for breast cancer | FG 1 n = 6, FG 2 n = 6 |
| Providers | Participants were healthcare providers at WCI | FG 1 n = 7, FG 2 n = 4 |
Focus group 1 is FG 1, focus group 2 is FG 2.
All focus groups were audio recorded with a digital recorder and a note-taker was present. The number of participants in each focus group ranged from 3 to 12 (Table 1). Each focus group lasted between 60 and 80 min. Refreshments and parking vouchers were provided. All participants, with the exception of physicians, received a $25.00 gift card for their participation. The study was approved by the Georgetown University MedStar Health Research Institute Institutional Review Board. The demographic characteristics of the patient participants are displayed in Table 2.
Table 2.
Demographic characteristics of breast cancer patient participants.
|
n = 12 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Demographic | n (%) | |
| Age (years): median[range] | 65 [41–77] | |
| Marital status | Never married | 3 (25) |
| Married | 3 (25) | |
| Widowed | 2 (17) | |
| Separated/divorced | 4 (33) | |
| Number of children | None | 2 (17) |
| 1 or more | 10 (83) | |
| Education | High School | 5 (42) |
| Some college or technical school | 2 (16) | |
| College graduate | 5 (42) | |
| Religion faith | Baptist | 7 (58) |
| Catholic | 1 (8.3) | |
| Lutheran | 1 (8.3) | |
| Pentecostal | 1 (8.3) | |
| Presbyterian | 1 (8.3) | |
| No affiliation (none) | 1 (8.3) | |
| Household income US$ | <40000 | 6 (50) |
| ≥40000 | 6 (50) | |
| Type of insurance | Medicaid | 4 (33.3) |
| Medicare | 4 (33.3) | |
| Private | 4 (33.3) | |
| Family history of any cancer | Yes | 10 (83) |
| No | 2 (17) | |
| Stage of cancer | I | 6 (50) |
| II | 3 (25) | |
| III | 1 (8) | |
| IV | 2 (17) | |
Data analysis. An outside research firm was hired to analyze the focus group data. A conventional qualitative content analysis approach [11] was used to inductively analyze and identify the categories/themes that emerged from the focus groups. This is a bottom-up approach that builds upon the data as opposed to a deductive coding scheme that is established in advance of the analysis. The focus group conversations were transcribed, and the transcripts were imported into QSR International's NVivo 10 software. The transcripts were organized into folders based on four categories. Using a line-by-line open coding technique [12], each sentence of the focus group conversations was reviewed. The relevant text was coded with one or more codes as necessary. Key concepts, thoughts, ideas, and events were coded using participants' words to establish the codes. Codes were added or modified as necessary as new meanings emerged [13]. To assess coding consistency, codes and their assignment to text were checked and rechecked. Using a constant comparison method [12], codes were compared and queried in NVivo to determine overall reoccurring themes and subthemes that emerged from all of the groups. Representative quotes were selected to support the themes and subthemes. To ensure trustworthiness of the data, confirmability was performed by two doctoral-level researchers, who audited the data and ensured internal consistency of the codes, themes, and subthemes [14].
3. Results
Five main themes and 24 subthemes (Table 3) emerged from the data. These themes include: promoting participation in research; personal experiences with cancer; support and support services; awareness, knowledge, and experience with clinical trials; and providers' roles in clinical trials.
Table 3.
Themes and subthemes.
| Themes/subthemes | Description | Examples of responses |
|---|---|---|
|
Theme: Promoting participation in research |
|
|
| Subtheme: Importance of including African Americans in research |
|
|
| Subtheme: Ways to encourage African Americans to participate in clinical research |
|
|
| Subtheme: Willingness to participate or encourage others to participate |
|
|
| Subtheme: Family and friends' roles and opinions about clinical trials |
|
|
| Subtheme: Church leaders' involvement in clinical trial participation |
|
|
| Subtheme: Using the church to educate and facilitate access to participants |
|
|
|
Theme: Personal experiences with cancer |
|
|
| Subtheme: Patient experiences with cancer |
|
|
| Subtheme: Thoughts of suicide |
|
|
| Subtheme: Importance of faith and God |
|
|
| Subtheme: Not discuss cancer |
|
|
| Subtheme: Family members with cancer |
|
|
|
Theme: Support and support services |
|
|
| Subtheme: Family support |
|
|
| Subtheme: Support from friends |
|
|
| Subtheme: Support services |
|
|
| Subtheme: Support from the church |
|
|
|
Theme: Awareness, knowledge, and experience with clinical trials |
Awareness of, knowledge, and experience with clinical trials varied across participants. Participants discussed topics including: caregiver awareness, knowledge about clinical trials, and experience with clinical trials. | |
| Subtheme: Caregiver awareness |
|
|
| Subtheme: Knowledge about clinical trials |
|
|
| Subtheme: Experience with clinical research |
|
|
|
Theme: Providers' roles in clinical trials |
Providers play an important role in encouraging participation in clinical research. In this section, participants described their thoughts about clinical trials, knowledge about available trials, barriers to clinical trial participation, communication with patients about clinical trials, research coordinators' roles in supporting physicians, and ways to approach patients about clinical trials. | |
| Subtheme: Thoughts about clinical trials |
|
|
| Subtheme: Knowledge about available trials |
|
|
| Subtheme: Barriers to clinical trial participation |
|
|
| Subtheme: Communication with patients about clinical trials |
|
|
| Subtheme: Research coordinators' roles in supporting physicians |
|
|
| Subtheme: Ways to approach patients about clinical trials |
|
|
4. Discussion
The aim of our study was to gather information on the perspectives and opinions about participating in clinical trials by different cohorts of stakeholders such as breast cancer patients, their family members/caregivers, religious leaders, and healthcare providers. The objective was for the information we received from the focus groups to help us improve our approach to clinical trial enrollment among African American patients at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington Cancer Institute.
The history of medical research and experimentation and the African American community is complicated and fraught with both neglect and abuse [15]. With this historical background, it is not surprising that exploration into the willingness of African Americans to participate in medical research is both plentiful and unclear in its findings. In past studies, research indicates that African Americans are significantly less willing to participate in medical research than other populations [16], [17], [18], [19]. On the other hand, despite underrepresentation in clinical trials, recent studies suggest that African Americans, more than any other racial and ethnic group, have interest in participating in research.” [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] Our study's findings are significant in the ability to shed some light on these conflicting findings.
An awareness of the complicated history is evident in some of the answers, particularly to theoretical participation. For example, “I'm glad the question was asked because it shows, I hope, a genuine interest in including a demographic that's typically excluded in a lot of settings” suggests awareness of exclusion from studies, while “They gonna have separate units. You just watch. They gonna have separate units” suggests concern about how African Americans are typically included. Similarly, participants discussed concerns about how they are perceived by the medical community: “I think we tend to think that the medical professional, in general, think that we're expendable, so they're willing to use us as quote unquote the guinea pig for somethin’ better.” There is also an awareness of the disparities in how cancer impacts African Americans: “… yeah, I think on paper we do need to be involved because so many diseases hit African Americans so much harder.” In discussing how to encourage participation, trust is a major theme that came up in multiple ways. Trust in one's provider (“Anything my doctor would ask me to do, I would try”), and needing medical providers to prove themselves—and by extension the trial—trustworthy (“It's really on the medical professionals, too. They have to build a level of trust that when they recommend something that you trust their judgment and say, okay, you haven't steered me wrong yet”), emerged as essential. This fits with the literature, which suggests that successful recruitment of minority participants to clinical trials needs to begin with efforts to develop trusting relationships between the minority community and the research institution.” [26].
This study sought to illuminate the decision-making process by asking Black cancer patients both about their feelings about theoretical participation (“Do you think it is important to include Blacks in clinical trials or clinical research?”) and their personal barriers to, and likelihood to participate in, clinical trials. Furthermore, it explored their knowledge and experiences with trials and the conversations they had with their providers. By asking their influencers—family members and caregivers, religious leaders, and providers—the study also looked at the larger context for that decision-making.
Supporting informed decision-making can be one way of establishing trust and respect in a relationship, and there was a lot of interest in being informed, feeling that education and support were important, as compared to pressure or persuasion. For example, “I think, well, the first thing is to want—participate is to understand what kind of research [it] is, what it means.” This is important even with the awareness of how very much information is involved with cancer treatment (“It's a lotta stuff, the detail”). Both patients and their caregivers highlighted word of mouth as a way to establish comfort with a specific trial (“Okay, if like my friend, for instance, she is participatin’ in the research. If she knew someone, maybe she could tell them about the trial that she's going through right now”). Participants with family members or friends who had had positive experiences with trials seemed to carry that positive impression (“I had a brother that went through clinical trial at Johns Hopkins. For him, it turned out to be very successful”).
The strategy of working with religious leaders to establish trust was also explored. One-on-one conversations (“I think that I probably have a minimal impact congregation-wide. There are members who approach me about their health challenge and how it's gonna be treated. They are often open to any input that I might have. Yes, I would say for those persons yes there's great influence.); unconditional support regardless of whether the decision is to participate or not (“More often than not, I think most persons end up doing what they have thought to do and then I lend my support if they go a different way than I would suggest, because that's my role is to support them in whatever decision they make”); and literature in its appropriate location in the community such as on bulletin boards (“We have an administrative desk in our church. They put a lot of literature and things out on that desk”) were important points that were brought up.
Once trust is established, another area of concern is that of practical commitment to participate. How much time would be involved? Will being assigned to the control still be a good option for the patient (“If you got [randomized to] either one and that would be good for you. If we can say things like that, you're gonna get a lot more buy-in from patients”)? This in particular echoes, and deepens our understanding of, other research suggesting that the presence of a no-treatment control or placebo control is inversely correlated with participation [27].
For providers, there was a strong desire for more support. They felt they needed to have more information about studies before they could promote participation in them (“I think that if I believe the trial, I think it's much easier to pass along the passion or the interest that I have. If I believe and if I fully understand the trial. Rather than if it's something that I don't think that it’s a good idea, probably if it's a not a good idea I will not even remember”). They indicated they needed more time with patients to cover their health appointment needs and the study recruitment communication needs (“The major barrier, I guess time is also because the visits are very quick”), and/or more staff to address the study recruitment needs (“You need more hands, and this is a time in health care that there are no more hands”).
All of these practical and actionable points provide both depth and instruction to the clinical research community in how to engage African American communities with regard to recruitment and retention. They also build upon the research study where we developed a culturally targeted video designed to impact six specific attitudes of African American cancer patients toward therapeutic trials and measured intent to enroll [28].
4.1. Strengths and limitations
A major strength of this study is that it incorporated not only patients, but also key stakeholders who have the ability to influence patients' decisions to participate in clinical research and shape how physicians and researchers approach patients. It is important to gain insight from family members/caregivers, providers, and religious leaders because in our experience at WCI and as studies have shown, these have been some of the main dissenters and skeptics of therapeutic trials. In a study conducted by Brown et al. [29], participants described pressures from family members and feeling overwhelmed as reasons for declining clinical trial participation. Of 14 participants who discussed the trial decision with a family member, either during or after the visit, eight stated that family members directly encouraged them to decline participation; three stated that such advice was indirect. Reasons for this included feeling that the trial was too dangerous and they did not want their family member to be a research “guinea pig.”
Some study limitations should also be considered. Our sample consisted of patients, family/caregivers, providers, and religious leaders only affiliated with WCI, so the results cannot be generalized to those outside of this community. Also, all of our patient participants were female, as there were no eligible African American men with breast cancer available at the time of the study. Furthermore, religious leaders were not required to personally have or know anyone with breast cancer, which could have limited their ability to fully sympathize and understand the journey that breast cancer patients embark upon from diagnosis to treatment.
5. Conclusion
Our study aimed to explore African American participation in breast cancer clinical trials, particularly with an eye toward facilitating such participation. Through positive experiences in building trust, word of mouth, increased support of informed decision-making, and supporting providers to initiate conversations about trials, there is the potential to increase participation in clinical trials. The data collected give a deeper and more nuanced understanding to the sometimes conflicting information collected on this complex topic.
Conflict of Interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank all study participants. This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of BCRF. Informed consent was obtained for all participants who took part in the study.
References
- 1.Ooi S.L., Martinez M.E., Li C.I. Disparities in breast Cancer characteristics and outcomes by race/ethnicity. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2011;127(3):729–738. doi: 10.1007/s10549-010-1191-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Mandelblatt J.S., Sheppard V.B., Neugut A.I. Black-White differences in breast Cancer outcomes among older medicare beneficiaries: does systemic treatment matter? JAMA. 2013;310(4):376–377. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.8273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Curtis E., Quale C., Haggstrom D., Smith Bindman R. Racial and ethnic differences in breast cancer survival. Cancer. 2008;12(1):171–180. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Silber J.H., Rosenbaum P.R., Clark A.S., Giantonio B.J., Ross R.N. Characteristics associated with differences in survival among black and white women with breast cancer. JAMA. 2013;310(4):389–397. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.8272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Cancer Clinical Trials Facts & Figures February 2013, National Cancer Society. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/clinicaltrials/clinical-trials.
- 6.Swain-Cabriales S., Bourdeanu L., Niland J., Stiller T., Somlo G. Enrollment onto breast cancer therapeutic clinical trials: a tertiary cancer center experience. Appl. Nurs. Res. 2013;26(3):133–135. doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2013.01.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Wright J.R., Whelan T.J., Schiff S., Dubois S., Crooks D. Why cancer patients enter randomized clinical trials: exploring the factors that influence their decision. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004;22(21):4312–4318. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.01.187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Lechleiter J. Forbes US Edition; 2014. Closing the Diversity Gap in Clinical Trials.http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlechleiter/2014/04/09/closing-the-diversity-gap-in-clinicaltrials/?utm_campaign=forbestwittersf&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social#6b6e7d7b3c91 Accessed on March 9 2016. Available at: [Google Scholar]
- 9.Linden H.M., Reisch L.M., Hart A., Jr., Harrington M.A., Nakano C. Attitudes toward participation in breast cancer randomized clinical trials in the African American community: a focus group study. Cancer Nurs. 2007;30(4):261–269. doi: 10.1097/01.NCC.0000281732.02738.31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Morgan D.L. Focus group interviewing. In: Gubrium J.F., Holstein J.A., editors. Handbook of Interviewing Research: Context & Method. Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 2002. pp. 141–159. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Hsieh H.F., Shannon S.E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Glaser B.G., Strauss A.L. Aldine Publishing Company; Chicago, IL: 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Schilling J. On the pragmatics of qualitative assessment: designing the process for content analysis. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2006;22(1):28–37. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Lincoln Y.S., Guba E.G. Sage Publications; Beverly Hills, CA: 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Washington H. Doubleday; New York, NY: 2006. Medical Apartheid: the Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Corbie-Smith G., Thomas S.B., St George D.M.M. Distrust, race, and research. Archives Intern. Med. 2002;162(21):2458–2463. doi: 10.1001/archinte.162.21.2458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Murthy V.H., Krumholz H.M., Gross C.P. Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. JAMA. 2004;291(22):2720–2726. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.22.2720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Braunstein J.B., Sherber N.S., Schulman S.P., Ding E.L., Powe N.R. Race, medical researcher distrust, perceived harm, and willingness to participate in cardiovascular prevention trials. Medicine. 2008;87(1):1–9. doi: 10.1097/MD.0b013e3181625d78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Buchbinder S.P., Metch B., Holte S.E., Scheer S., Coletti A. Determinants of enrollment in a preventive HIV vaccine trial: hypothetical versus actual willingness and barriers to participation. J. Aquir Immune Defic. Syndr. 2004;36(1):604–612. doi: 10.1097/00126334-200405010-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Cottler L.B., McCloskey D.J., Aguilar-Gaxiola S. Community needs, concerns, and perceptions about health research: findings from the clinical and translational science award sentinel network. Am. J. Public Health. 2013;103(9):1685–1692. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300941. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Wendler D., Kington R., Madans J. Are racial and ethnic minorities less willing to participate in health research? PLoS Med. 2006;3:201–210. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Byrd G.S., Edwards C.L., Kelkar V.A. Recruiting intergenerational African American males for biomedical research studies: a major research challenge. J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 2011;103:480–487. doi: 10.1016/s0027-9684(15)30361-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Durant R.W., Davis R.B., Marcantonio E., Freeman M.B., Landon B.E. Willingness to participate in clinical trials among elderly whites and African Americans previously exposed to clinical research. J. Cult. Divers. 2011;18(1):8–19. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Powell-Young Y.M., Spruill I.J. Views of Black nurses toward genetic research and testing. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 2013;45:151–159. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Research!America. New Poll Shows Minority Populations Support Clinical Trials to Improve Health of Others but Participation Remains Low Among African-americans, Hispanics and Asians. Accessed January 15, 2014 at www.researchamerica.org/release_31july13_clinicaltrialspoll.
- 26.Vickers S.M., Fouad M.N. An overview of EMPaCT and fundamental issues Affecting minority participation in Cancer clinical trials: enhancing minority participation in clinical trials (EMPaCT): laying the groundwork for improving minority clinical trial accrual. Cancer. 2014;120(7):1087–1090. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Mills E.J., Seely D., Rachlis B., Griffith L., Wu P. Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(2):141–148. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70576-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Banda D., Wang H., Libin A., Swain S. A pilot study of a culturally targeted video intervention to increase participation of African American patients in Cancer clinical trials. Oncol. 2012;17(5):708–714. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0454. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Brown R.F., Cadet D.L., Houlihan R.H., Thomson M.D., Pratt E.C. Perceptions of participation in a phase I, II, or III clinical trial among African American patients with cancer: what do refusers say? J. Oncol. Pract. 2013;9(6):287–293. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2013.001039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
