Reasons for declining participation in inpatient research among historically minoritized racial and ethnic communities: A scoping review

IF 1.4 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications Pub Date : 2024-11-07 DOI:10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101386
Poyani Bavishi , Alyssa A. Grimshaw , Oscar F. Rojas Perez , Brian D. Kiluk , E. Jennifer Edelman
{"title":"Reasons for declining participation in inpatient research among historically minoritized racial and ethnic communities: A scoping review","authors":"Poyani Bavishi ,&nbsp;Alyssa A. Grimshaw ,&nbsp;Oscar F. Rojas Perez ,&nbsp;Brian D. Kiluk ,&nbsp;E. Jennifer Edelman","doi":"10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101386","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>To promote equitable recruitment for studies conducted in the inpatient hospital setting, we sought to characterize reasons why individuals, both from historically minoritized racial and ethnic groups and the broader patient population, refuse participation in clinical trials within inpatient settings.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>An exhaustive search of the literature was conducted in Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to find relevant articles published from the inception of each database to April 30, 2023. Studies recruiting patients during their inpatient stay and reporting reasons for refusing participation in clinical trials met the inclusion criteria.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The search resulted in 2264 citations, of which 22 were included. Fourteen did not report data related to race, while 19 reported no ethnicity data. Reasons for refusal across trials included study burden and inconvenience (n = 16), transportation and logistical issues (n = 13), lack of interest in research (n = 12), and refusal to be randomized (n = 10). Prominent concepts included the importance of incorporating social support systems in consenting processes, lack of efforts to include data or recruitment efforts for individuals from minoritized groups, and physician involvement in recruitment.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>To enhance participation among historically minoritized communities in clinical trials, greater efforts must be made to collect demographic information and document refusal reasons to inform future recruitment methods. Strategies include proactively accounting for culture and language differences in study design and recruitment and intentionally engaging social support networks. Limiting study burden and logistics and optimizing collaborations between clinical and research teams would promote accessibility and foster patient trust.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37937,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","volume":"42 ","pages":"Article 101386"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865424001339","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

To promote equitable recruitment for studies conducted in the inpatient hospital setting, we sought to characterize reasons why individuals, both from historically minoritized racial and ethnic groups and the broader patient population, refuse participation in clinical trials within inpatient settings.

Methods

An exhaustive search of the literature was conducted in Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to find relevant articles published from the inception of each database to April 30, 2023. Studies recruiting patients during their inpatient stay and reporting reasons for refusing participation in clinical trials met the inclusion criteria.

Results

The search resulted in 2264 citations, of which 22 were included. Fourteen did not report data related to race, while 19 reported no ethnicity data. Reasons for refusal across trials included study burden and inconvenience (n = 16), transportation and logistical issues (n = 13), lack of interest in research (n = 12), and refusal to be randomized (n = 10). Prominent concepts included the importance of incorporating social support systems in consenting processes, lack of efforts to include data or recruitment efforts for individuals from minoritized groups, and physician involvement in recruitment.

Discussion

To enhance participation among historically minoritized communities in clinical trials, greater efforts must be made to collect demographic information and document refusal reasons to inform future recruitment methods. Strategies include proactively accounting for culture and language differences in study design and recruitment and intentionally engaging social support networks. Limiting study burden and logistics and optimizing collaborations between clinical and research teams would promote accessibility and foster patient trust.
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
历史上少数种族和民族社区参与住院病人研究减少的原因:范围审查
背景为了促进在医院住院环境中进行的研究的公平招募,我们试图找出历史上少数种族和民族群体以及更广泛的患者群体拒绝参与住院环境中临床试验的原因。方法在Cochrane Library、Google Scholar、Embase、MEDLINE、PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science数据库中进行了详尽的文献检索,以找到从每个数据库建立之初到2023年4月30日期间发表的相关文章。在住院期间招募患者并报告拒绝参与临床试验原因的研究符合纳入标准。其中 14 篇未报告种族相关数据,19 篇未报告种族数据。各试验的拒绝原因包括研究负担和不便(16 例)、交通和后勤问题(13 例)、对研究缺乏兴趣(12 例)以及拒绝随机化(10 例)。突出的概念包括在同意过程中纳入社会支持系统的重要性、缺乏针对少数群体个人的数据或招募工作,以及医生参与招募。策略包括在研究设计和招募中主动考虑文化和语言差异,并有意识地让社会支持网络参与进来。限制研究负担和后勤工作,优化临床和研究团队之间的合作,将促进研究的可及性并增进患者的信任。
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
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
146
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is an international peer reviewed open access journal that publishes articles pertaining to all aspects of clinical trials, including, but not limited to, design, conduct, analysis, regulation and ethics. Manuscripts submitted should appeal to a readership drawn from a wide range of disciplines including medicine, life science, pharmaceutical science, biostatistics, epidemiology, computer science, management science, behavioral science, and bioethics. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is unique in that it is outside the confines of disease specifications, and it strives to increase the transparency of medical research and reduce publication bias by publishing scientifically valid original research findings irrespective of their perceived importance, significance or impact. Both randomized and non-randomized trials are within the scope of the Journal. Some common topics include trial design rationale and methods, operational methodologies and challenges, and positive and negative trial results. In addition to original research, the Journal also welcomes other types of communications including, but are not limited to, methodology reviews, perspectives and discussions. Through timely dissemination of advances in clinical trials, the goal of Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is to serve as a platform to enhance the communication and collaboration within the global clinical trials community that ultimately advances this field of research for the benefit of patients.
期刊最新文献
Involving youth with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities as collaborators in a comparative effectiveness trial: A community-engaged research approach Examining recollections of Black women with breast cancer who participated in clinical trials: A grounded practical theory study of patient-provider communication A simple blinding index for randomized controlled trials The effects of alpha-lipoic acid transdermal patch for local subcutaneous fat reduction: A randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial in overweight volunteers Noninvasive anatomical assessment for ruling out hemodynamically relevant coronary artery anomalies in adults – A comparison of coronary-CT to invasive coronary angiography: The NARCO study design
×
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