Background: Underrepresented minority (URM) patients enroll in cancer clinical trials at low rates. We studied the perspectives of health care professionals to better understand the challenges and potential facilitators of recruiting URM patients into clinical trials. Methods: A purposeful sampling approach was utilized to recruit health care professionals and clinical research staff who recruited and cared for URM patients in a therapeutic cancer clinical trial at any Mayo Clinic site, from July 2018 through October 2021.Data were gathered using a semistructured qualitative interviews. Participants were interviewed about the challenges of recruiting URM patients into cancer clinical trials and possible strategies for improving URM patient enrollment. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis. Results: Of the key themes that emerged from participant interviews ( n = 28), perceived barriers to recruiting URM patients into clinical trials included lack of workforce diversity, underutilization of patient navigators, ineffective community outreach and patient recruitment, restricted access to diverse patient populations, and restrictive clinical trial eligibility criteria. Other barriers reported were lack of insurance and access to care and transportation, low socioeconomic status, and mistrust of health care and research. Strategies suggested for improving the recruitment of URM patients into clinical trials included: diversifying and adding research staff, increasing and improving community outreach and advocacy, partnering with clinics closer to patients, increasing monetary and logistical support for patient participation, creating opportunities that build and enhance trust, and systematically examining and modifying clinical trial eligibility criteria. Conclusions: Our findings reveal barriers that have limited URM patient inclusion in cancer clinical trials and highlight strategies to overcoming these barriers.
A Mixed-Method Approach to Explore Successful Recruitment and Treatment of Minority Patients on Therapeutic Cancer Clinical Trials at a Tertiary Referral Center Using Photo-Elicitation Interviews
Abstract A076: Trial participation in pictures: Using photo elicitation to explore minority patients’ experiences on therapeutic cancer clinical trials
Abstract Background: Much has been published about barriers to research participation for under-represented minority (URM) yet we know little about the experiences, motivations, and decision-making of the URM patients who were successfully treated on clinical trial (CT). The purpose of this study is to draw on the experiences of URM patients as insiders of practical knowledge of CT through photo elicitation to comprehensively understand the current state of recruitment and treatment of URM patients on interventional cancer CTs across the Mayo Clinic enterprise with a short-term goal of informing mechanisms to enrich CT participation and a long-term goal of building a patient-centered cancer practice and clinical trial patient population that is reflective of the diverse communities served by Mayo Clinic. Method: An Appreciative inquiry approach was adapted for this study which acknowledges that existing strengths and everyday experiences of URM patients has the potential to allow a more nuanced view as it pertains to our cancer populations. A total of 138 URM were invited to participate. Using photo elicitation technique, patients were asked to take photographs to portray factors that motivated them and/or facilitated their enrollment, barriers to enrollment and recommendations to improve the process for CT recruitment for other URM. Participant-generated photographs (59) and accompanying 13 interview narratives were analyzed using layered analysis. Results: A total of 13 patients (female =9) participated in the photo interviews. URM detailed their overall experiences around CT participation, motivations for participating in clinical trials; facilitators to clinical trial participation; and opportunities and considerations for increasing minority patients CT participation. Photo analyses provided symbolic representation of patients’ general experiences around CT including celebrating their “new identity”, finding peace in moments of nostalgia, their journey through the trial, lost times and finances and yet finding a new purpose to live through CT participation. Importantly patients described decision making in CT participation as a relational approach. Patients suggested opportunities and considerations for increasing minority patients trial participation, which included minimizing logistical barriers, decentralizing cancer clinical trials, increasing awareness via patient narratives, diversifying research staff, minimizing cost, and being clear on purpose and benefit of the trial. Conclusion: Our study highlights the potential to utilize visual data and narratives from URM in CT recruitment and education programming. It provided valuable insights from the URM community for the URM community on key issues on motivations of CT participation and decision-making in CT participation. Citation Format: Gladys B. Asiedu, Rahma Warsame, Mary O’Shea, Yong-hun Kim, Sara A. Ellingson, Katharine A. Price. Trial participation in pictures: Using photo elicitation to explore minority patients’ experiences on therapeutic cancer clinical trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 16th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2023 Sep 29-Oct 2;Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32(12 Suppl):Abstract nr A076.
Patient-Reported Outcome Driven Case Management System for Hematology — a Prospective Study
Abstract Background: Modern clinical practice places time restrictions on the amount of information and processing that can be done in a typical office visit. Meeting patient needs within the healthcare system is challenging, contributing to patient (pt) and clinician dissatisfaction and potential suboptimal outcomes. We developed an electronic point-of-care case management system for cancer patients. The system's goal is to obtain patient-reported quality of life (PROQOL) outcomes and provide clinicians with information regarding QOL issues to address. We tested this system in a prospective randomized study against usual care (UC). The primary objective was to determine if PROQOL system would improve mean QOL over time. Methods: Eligible pts were adults with multiple myeloma (MM) or light amyloidosis (AL), seen at Mayo Clinic. Pts were randomized 2:1 to PROQOL system or usual care. PROQOL system was offered prior to every visit. Pts select from various categories about their single biggest concern, and receive a printed list of actionable resources based on selected concern. Clinicians also receive the PROQOL results to review with pts. Providers and pts randomized to PROQOL completed a "was it worth it survey" (WIWI). An 8 item Linear Analogue Self-Assessment was used to assess QOL, the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included distribution of choices of most important concern and their relationship to demographic and clinical variables. The study was powered to detect a 0.5 standard deviation difference in QOL between groups. Results: There were 233 patients enrolled (171 MM, 62 AL) in this study between July 1, 2016 and April 17, 2018. Median age was 65 years (range 31-87), and 59% were male. Median time from diagnosis to study consent was 37 months (PROQOL 36.3 versus UC 39.6). Median follow up for all patients was 15 months (range: 0.7-22 months), and median follow up for PROQOL pts was 16 months and 14 months for UC pts (p=0.027). There were 25 pts that have died since enrollment and 208 alive. No statistical significant difference in QOL between PROQOL and UC (median QOL 7 vs 7, p=0.75). The most prevalent main concerns selected were Physical Health (37%) and Cancer and Diagnosis (27%), the pattern remained even when pts were given the option to pick a second major concern 26% and 20% respectively. No other concern was listed more than 8% at baseline. All category selections and percentages are shown in the Figure. The average time to complete the instrument was 6 minutes. Pts found the PROQOL system was worth their time (75%), they would choose it again (87%) and recommend it to others (82%). Eighty-two percent of clinicians did not think the PROQOL tool negatively impacted their practice and 75% believed they may see improvement in pt wellbeing. Discussion: The PROQOL system was well received by pts and clinicians but did not improve QOL relative to UC in this study. The PROQOL demonstrates that majority of patients strongly desire more information regarding ongoing therapy, clinical trials, prognosis and toxicity. Further investigation is needed to understand whether communication is limited by time or mechanism of information delivery, such as verbal or written, or whether it should be undertaken in a separate allied health care visit. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Gertz: spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; annexon: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria; Teva: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; celgene: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria. Kumar:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dingli:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding.