Comparing research attitudes in Down syndrome and non-Down syndrome research decision-makers

Thuy V. Lu, Paola Campos, Sean Leader, Xavier Lee, Helena Xu, Eric Doran, Joshua D Grill, Ira T. Lott
{"title":"Comparing research attitudes in Down syndrome and non-Down syndrome research decision-makers","authors":"Thuy V. Lu,&nbsp;Paola Campos,&nbsp;Sean Leader,&nbsp;Xavier Lee,&nbsp;Helena Xu,&nbsp;Eric Doran,&nbsp;Joshua D Grill,&nbsp;Ira T. Lott","doi":"10.1002/trc2.12478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> INTRODUCTION</h3>\n \n <p>Recruitment challenges in people with and without Down syndrome (DS) can delay research progress and risk sample bias. This study identified and quantified differences in research attitudes across populations of research enrollment decision-makers for individuals with and without DS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> METHODS</h3>\n \n <p>We performed analyses using data from two registries: the University of California, Irvine Consent-to-Contact (C2C) Registry and DS-Connect. The former represented a sample of non-DS decision-makers (<i>N</i> = 4818), while for the latter, we excluded individuals with DS, leaving a population of DS family decision-makers (<i>N</i> = 976). We assessed scores on the Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ) between DS and non-DS decision-makers. We compared total RAQ scores using linear regression and assessed item-level RAQ differences using proportional odds regression.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> RESULTS</h3>\n \n <p>Mean total RAQ scores were not statistically different between decision-makers in the two registries, after adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, education, and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) time frame (Est. Diff = 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.22, 0.43; <i>p</i> = 0.531). However, in a pre-specified analysis, we did find evidence of differential attitudes on item-level RAQ scores. Specifically, decision-makers for participants with DS had increased odds of a more favorable response to the question of responsibility to help others (DS vs. non-DS: odds ratio [OR] = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.48) and decreased odds of a more favorable response to the question regarding the belief that medical research would find cures for major diseases during their lifetime (DS vs. non-DS: OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.90).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> DISCUSSION</h3>\n \n <p>Our findings provide insights for researchers to develop strategies for recruiting individuals with and without DS into clinical research. The observed item-level differences warrant further investigation to instruct precise recruitment strategies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Highlights</h3>\n \n <div>\n <ul>\n \n <li>Research attitudes between decision-makers for individuals with Down syndrome (DS) and decision-makers without DS were observed to be similar on average.</li>\n \n <li>Item-level differences in research attitudes were observed to differ for DS and non-DS decision-makers.</li>\n \n <li>These results can help facilitate precise recruitment strategies for populations with DS.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":53225,"journal":{"name":"Alzheimer''s and Dementia: Translational Research and Clinical Interventions","volume":"10 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11289724/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alzheimer''s and Dementia: Translational Research and Clinical Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trc2.12478","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Recruitment challenges in people with and without Down syndrome (DS) can delay research progress and risk sample bias. This study identified and quantified differences in research attitudes across populations of research enrollment decision-makers for individuals with and without DS.

METHODS

We performed analyses using data from two registries: the University of California, Irvine Consent-to-Contact (C2C) Registry and DS-Connect. The former represented a sample of non-DS decision-makers (N = 4818), while for the latter, we excluded individuals with DS, leaving a population of DS family decision-makers (N = 976). We assessed scores on the Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ) between DS and non-DS decision-makers. We compared total RAQ scores using linear regression and assessed item-level RAQ differences using proportional odds regression.

RESULTS

Mean total RAQ scores were not statistically different between decision-makers in the two registries, after adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, education, and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) time frame (Est. Diff = 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.22, 0.43; p = 0.531). However, in a pre-specified analysis, we did find evidence of differential attitudes on item-level RAQ scores. Specifically, decision-makers for participants with DS had increased odds of a more favorable response to the question of responsibility to help others (DS vs. non-DS: odds ratio [OR] = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.48) and decreased odds of a more favorable response to the question regarding the belief that medical research would find cures for major diseases during their lifetime (DS vs. non-DS: OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.90).

DISCUSSION

Our findings provide insights for researchers to develop strategies for recruiting individuals with and without DS into clinical research. The observed item-level differences warrant further investigation to instruct precise recruitment strategies.

Highlights

  • Research attitudes between decision-makers for individuals with Down syndrome (DS) and decision-makers without DS were observed to be similar on average.
  • Item-level differences in research attitudes were observed to differ for DS and non-DS decision-makers.
  • These results can help facilitate precise recruitment strategies for populations with DS.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较唐氏综合症和非唐氏综合症研究决策者的研究态度。
导言:唐氏综合征(DS)患者和非唐氏综合征(DS)患者在招募过程中遇到的困难会延误研究进展,并有可能造成样本偏差。本研究确定并量化了有唐氏综合征和无唐氏综合征人群的研究注册决策者在研究态度上的差异:我们使用两个登记处的数据进行了分析:加利福尼亚大学欧文分校同意联系 (C2C) 登记处和 DS-Connect。前者代表了非 DS 决策者样本(N = 4818),而对于后者,我们排除了 DS 患者,留下了 DS 家庭决策者样本(N = 976)。我们对 DS 决策者和非 DS 决策者的研究态度问卷(RAQ)得分进行了评估。我们使用线性回归法比较了 RAQ 总分,并使用比例赔率回归法评估了项目级 RAQ 差异:在对年龄、性别、种族和民族、教育程度以及冠状病毒疾病 2019 (COVID-19) 时间框架进行调整后,两个登记册中决策者的 RAQ 平均总分没有统计学差异(估计差异 = 0.11,95% 置信区间 [CI]:-0.22,0.43;P = 0.531)。然而,在一项预先指定的分析中,我们确实发现了对项目级 RAQ 分数持不同态度的证据。具体而言,DS 患者的决策者对 "帮助他人的责任 "这一问题做出更有利回答的几率增加(DS vs. 非 DS:几率比 [OR] = 1.26,95% CI:1.08, 1.48),而对 "相信医学研究会在他们有生之年找到治疗重大疾病的方法 "这一问题做出更有利回答的几率降低(DS vs. 非 DS:OR = 0.77,95% CI:0.66, 0.90):我们的研究结果为研究人员制定招募 DS 患者和非 DS 患者参与临床研究的策略提供了启示。观察到的项目级差异值得进一步研究,以指导精确的招募策略:据观察,唐氏综合征(DS)患者的决策者和非唐氏综合征患者的决策者的研究态度平均相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.10
自引率
2.10%
发文量
134
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Alzheimer''s & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions (TRCI) is a peer-reviewed, open access,journal from the Alzheimer''s Association®. The journal seeks to bridge the full scope of explorations between basic research on drug discovery and clinical studies, validating putative therapies for aging-related chronic brain conditions that affect cognition, motor functions, and other behavioral or clinical symptoms associated with all forms dementia and Alzheimer''s disease. The journal will publish findings from diverse domains of research and disciplines to accelerate the conversion of abstract facts into practical knowledge: specifically, to translate what is learned at the bench into bedside applications. The journal seeks to publish articles that go beyond a singular emphasis on either basic drug discovery research or clinical research. Rather, an important theme of articles will be the linkages between and among the various discrete steps in the complex continuum of therapy development. For rapid communication among a multidisciplinary research audience involving the range of therapeutic interventions, TRCI will consider only original contributions that include feature length research articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, brief reports, narrative reviews, commentaries, letters, perspectives, and research news that would advance wide range of interventions to ameliorate symptoms or alter the progression of chronic neurocognitive disorders such as dementia and Alzheimer''s disease. The journal will publish on topics related to medicine, geriatrics, neuroscience, neurophysiology, neurology, psychiatry, clinical psychology, bioinformatics, pharmaco-genetics, regulatory issues, health economics, pharmacoeconomics, and public health policy as these apply to preclinical and clinical research on therapeutics.
期刊最新文献
Data-driven discovery of associations between prescribed drugs and dementia risk: A systematic review Perspective: Minimally clinically important “symptomatic” benefit associated with disease modification resulting from anti-amyloid immunotherapy Dynamic neurocognitive adaptation in aging: Development and validation of a new scale Unraveling the impact of blood RANKL and OPG levels on Alzheimer's disease: Independent of bone mineral density and inflammation Comparison of sample characteristics of Wisconsin Alzheimer's Disease Research Center participants with the Wisconsin state population—An evaluation of the recruitment effort
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1