Florez, Narjust

53 Background: Language barriers affect millions in the US, where nearly 8% of individuals (~ 26 million) have limited English proficiency, making it harder to access, understand, and engage with healthcare services. As clinical trials enroll increasingly diverse participants, ensuring the accessibility and clarity of consent forms is critical. Understanding translation costs can improve budgeting and prevent enrollment delays for non-English-speaking participants. This study evaluates the costs of translating consent forms into three of the most widely spoken non-English languages in the U.S. Methods: In February 2025, we queried ClinicalTrials.gov to identify publicly available consent forms for phase 3 interventional trials in lung, breast, GI, & GU cancers from 2013–2024. In total, 18 consent forms were identified. The U.S. News top 20 U.S. cancer centers were contacted to identify commonly used certified translation companies. We obtained quotes from 8 IRB-certified agencies via online portal for Spanish, Simplified Chinese, and Tagalog translations. Results: The 18 informed consent forms were on average 14 pages long (range: 3-29 pages). Across the 8 translation companies, translating documents into Spanish (average price per document [$pD]: 1088.58) was cheaper than Chinese (average $pD: $1253.94, p < 0.001) and Tagalog (average $pD: $1399.07, p < 0.001). Costs varied significantly by company (p < 0.001). Quality assurance measures, including dual translation and proofreading, were included in 87.5% of quotes. The average turnaround time for translating one consent into 3 different languages was 4 business days (range: 2-8 business days). Conclusions: The cost of translating informed consent forms for oncology clinical trials varies significantly by language and translation company, with Spanish translations being the least expensive and Tagalog the most costly. While translation costs represent a small fraction of overall trial expenses, variability in pricing and turnaround times underscores the need for structured budgeting and standardized translation processes. Translations of informed consents should ideally be completed prior to trial initiation to avoid the delayed recruitment or exclusion of non-English speaking patients. Our results are valuable for researchers & sponsors involved in oncology clinical trials, helping them make informed decisions in budgeting regarding language translation services. Company ID Average $pD, Spanish Average $pD, Chinese Average $pD, Tagalog Spanish $pW Chinese $pW Tagalog $pW 1 840.11 1,054.07 1,054.07 0.16 0.20 0.20 2 1,109.63 1,553.49 1,775.41 0.22 0.28 0.32 3 945.00 1,081.50 1,422.33 0.10 0.17 0.12 4 1,880.56 1,880.56 2,131.94 0.30 0.30 0.34 5 875.35 875.35 875.35 0.15 0.15 0.15 6 1,029.98 1,367.56 1,472.93 0.27 0.36 0.39 7 929.72 978.65 1,125.45 0.14 0.15 0.17 8 1,042.39 1,184.50 1,279.22 0.33 0.37 0.41

AbstractBackgroundIn 2016, the IDWeek program committee was charged with ensuring gender equity in speaker sessions. Whether this charge also resulted in more opportunities for historically underrepresented speakers is unknown.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of trends in the demographic composition of IDWeek speakers and program committee members between 2013 and 2021. We used descriptive statistics to summarize data, χ2 tests to compare speaker demographics between 2013–2016 (before 2016) and 2017–2021 (after 2016), and Cochran–Armitage tests for trend. Each speaker slot was considered an independent event.ResultsA total of 5482 speaker slots were filled by 3389 individuals from 2013 to 2021. There was a linear increase in female speakers from 38.6% in 2013 to 58.4% in 2021 (P &lt; .001). The proportion of white speakers decreased overall from 84.9% in 2013 to 63.5% in 2021. Compared with white speakers, more slots were filled by Asian speakers after 2016 versus before 2016 (20.1% vs 14.8%, respectively; P &lt; .001). Program committee members from 2013–2021 were &gt;80% non-Hispanic white; &lt;5% of committee members identified as black, American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, or Hispanic. More program committee slots were filled by women after 2016 than before 2016 (52.7% vs 33.9%; P = .004).ConclusionsIntentional consideration of gender equity by the program committee was associated with equitable gender representation of invited speakers at IDWeek after 2016. Gradually, the proportions of IDWeek speakers from historically excluded racial/ethnic approached their respective proportions in the IDSA membership. White speakers remained overrepresented relative to membership proportions until 2021, and gaps in program committee racial/ethnic demographic representation highlights opportunities for continued inclusion, diversity, access, and equity at IDWeek.