Ensuring Representation: A Scoping Review of Interventions to Increase Minority Participation in Cancer-Related Research.

IF 4.6 3区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY JCO oncology practice Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-13 DOI:10.1200/OP-24-00468
David Lewis Pottinger, Soumya Niranjan, Nusrat Jahan, Aakash Desai
{"title":"Ensuring Representation: A Scoping Review of Interventions to Increase Minority Participation in Cancer-Related Research.","authors":"David Lewis Pottinger, Soumya Niranjan, Nusrat Jahan, Aakash Desai","doi":"10.1200/OP-24-00468","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Minority representation in cancer-related clinical trials (CCTs) is often inadequate. This poses a threat to the generalizability of studies and risks promoting health inequities. This scoping review set out to examine strategies to promote minority participation in CCTs and across the entire continuity of cancer-related care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed articles in the following databases: EMBASE, Scopus, and PubMed. For inclusion, studies were required to focus, to a significant extent, on interventions to increase minority enrollment/retention. They were also required to objectively report the strength of these interventions, and either compare them with a control, or with a different intervention attempted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After initially identifying 817 articles, we reviewed 337 articles in their entirety, and found 37 that satisfied our full list of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Five general categories of interventions emerged in these studies. These included educational interventions (n = 17), patient navigation (n = 12), community engagement (n = 8), autonomous recruitment strategies (n = 4), and financial assistance/incentives (n = 4). We then examined rates of statistical significance (for studies that assessed this). Seven of 10 articles that used education intervention strategies and assessed statistical significance demonstrated improvement in at least one variable. For patient navigation, 5/5 showed significance. For community engagement, 1/1 found a significant difference. For studies using an autonomous recruitment strategy, 2/2 showed an improvement. Finally, for financial assistance/incentives, 1/3 found a significant improvement in minority enrollment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study highlights the critical role of tailored educational interventions and patient navigation in increasing minority participation in cancer-related clinical trials. However, all five categories of interventions showed promise. More research is needed, particularly in assessing the efficacy of multipronged approaches, to ensure adequate minority participation in CCTs.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"1397-1412"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO oncology practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-24-00468","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Minority representation in cancer-related clinical trials (CCTs) is often inadequate. This poses a threat to the generalizability of studies and risks promoting health inequities. This scoping review set out to examine strategies to promote minority participation in CCTs and across the entire continuity of cancer-related care.

Methods: We reviewed articles in the following databases: EMBASE, Scopus, and PubMed. For inclusion, studies were required to focus, to a significant extent, on interventions to increase minority enrollment/retention. They were also required to objectively report the strength of these interventions, and either compare them with a control, or with a different intervention attempted.

Results: After initially identifying 817 articles, we reviewed 337 articles in their entirety, and found 37 that satisfied our full list of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Five general categories of interventions emerged in these studies. These included educational interventions (n = 17), patient navigation (n = 12), community engagement (n = 8), autonomous recruitment strategies (n = 4), and financial assistance/incentives (n = 4). We then examined rates of statistical significance (for studies that assessed this). Seven of 10 articles that used education intervention strategies and assessed statistical significance demonstrated improvement in at least one variable. For patient navigation, 5/5 showed significance. For community engagement, 1/1 found a significant difference. For studies using an autonomous recruitment strategy, 2/2 showed an improvement. Finally, for financial assistance/incentives, 1/3 found a significant improvement in minority enrollment.

Conclusion: Our study highlights the critical role of tailored educational interventions and patient navigation in increasing minority participation in cancer-related clinical trials. However, all five categories of interventions showed promise. More research is needed, particularly in assessing the efficacy of multipronged approaches, to ensure adequate minority participation in CCTs.

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
确保代表性:增加少数民族参与癌症相关研究的干预措施的范围审查。
目的:在癌症相关临床试验(cct)中,少数群体代表性往往不足。这对研究的普遍性构成威胁,并有可能助长卫生不公平现象。这项范围审查旨在审查促进少数群体参与有条件现金转移治疗和整个癌症相关护理连续性的策略。方法:我们回顾了以下数据库中的文章:EMBASE、Scopus和PubMed。为了纳入,研究需要在很大程度上集中于增加少数民族入学/保留的干预措施。他们还被要求客观地报告这些干预措施的强度,并将其与对照组或不同的干预措施进行比较。结果:在初步识别817篇文章后,我们对337篇文章进行了完整的审查,发现37篇文章符合我们的纳入和排除标准。在这些研究中出现了五类干预措施。这些措施包括教育干预(n = 17),患者导航(n = 12),社区参与(n = 8),自主招聘策略(n = 4)和财政援助/激励(n = 4)。然后我们检查了统计显著性率(对于评估这一点的研究)。使用教育干预策略并评估统计显著性的10篇文章中有7篇表明至少在一个变量上有所改善。对于患者导航,5/5表示有意义。在社区参与方面,1/1发现了显著差异。对于使用自主招聘策略的研究,2/2显示出改善。最后,在财政援助/激励方面,三分之一的人发现少数民族入学率有了显著提高。结论:我们的研究强调了量身定制的教育干预和患者导航在增加少数群体参与癌症相关临床试验中的关键作用。然而,所有五类干预措施都显示出了希望。需要进行更多的研究,特别是在评估多管齐下方法的效力方面,以确保少数群体充分参与有条件现金援助。
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
6.40
自引率
7.50%
发文量
518
期刊最新文献
Beyond Broadband: Building Trust and Connection in Teleoncology. Liposomal Versus Conventional Doxorubicin as First-Line Therapy in Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcomas: Observational Multi-Institutional Cohort of 8.5-Year Experience. When Is the Right Time? A Qualitative Study of Timing of Specialty Palliative Care in Patients With Brain Tumors. Translating Cancer Genetics Care: Digital Tools to Improve Cancer Genetics Risk Assessment for Patients With Limited English Proficiency. Phase II Trials in Radiation Oncology: When Success Fails to Translate.
×
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:604180095
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