Increasing Equity Within Randomized Control Trials: A Qualitative Analysis of Focus Groups From a Multi-Site, Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

Global advances in integrative medicine and health Pub Date : 2025-06-05 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/27536130251349111
Elondra D Harr, Ruth D Rodriguez, Jose E Baez, Jessica L Barnhill, Christine R Lathren, Natalia E Morone, Isabel J Roth
{"title":"Increasing Equity Within Randomized Control Trials: A Qualitative Analysis of Focus Groups From a Multi-Site, Pragmatic Clinical Trial.","authors":"Elondra D Harr, Ruth D Rodriguez, Jose E Baez, Jessica L Barnhill, Christine R Lathren, Natalia E Morone, Isabel J Roth","doi":"10.1177/27536130251349111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Underrepresentation of diverse populations in clinical trials poses challenges to equity and external validity in health care research. To successfully recruit underrepresented participants in pragmatic clinical trials, researchers must understand the perspectives and needs of individuals from diverse backgrounds who participate in research.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this qualitative study was to gain an understanding of the needs and perspectives of participants of the OPTIMUM trial -- a pragmatic trial evaluating mindfulness-based stress reduction for chronic low back pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This qualitative study employed focus groups with participants from 3 clinical sites: Boston Medical Center, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the University of Pittsburgh. Focus group discussions centered on participants' experiences, barriers, and facilitators to engagement in the OPTIMUM trial. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis and the rapid qualitative analysis method, Lightning Reports, for real-time feedback integration into the trial process.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six focus groups were conducted with 46 participants, of whom 39.1% were first-time research participants and 56.5% identified as Black or African American. Qualitative analysis identified five key themes:1) The importance of providers in the recruitment of cLBP patients, (2) Motivators to participate and stay engaged in clinical research, (3) Participant lack of understanding of randomized control trials (RCTs) and general research processes, (4) Desire for social connection and community-building among participants, and (5) the Positive impact of regular study staff interaction.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Equity in RCTs requires intentional strategies to address barriers to participation and engagement faced by historically underrepresented populations. Engaging health care providers in recruitment, fostering positive interactions with study staff, and creating opportunities for social connection can improve recruitment, retention, and engagement. Incorporating community-engaged research methods and real-time feedback mechanisms can further support inclusivity and equity in pragmatic clinical trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":73159,"journal":{"name":"Global advances in integrative medicine and health","volume":"14 ","pages":"27536130251349111"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12144376/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global advances in integrative medicine and health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/27536130251349111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Underrepresentation of diverse populations in clinical trials poses challenges to equity and external validity in health care research. To successfully recruit underrepresented participants in pragmatic clinical trials, researchers must understand the perspectives and needs of individuals from diverse backgrounds who participate in research.

Objective: The purpose of this qualitative study was to gain an understanding of the needs and perspectives of participants of the OPTIMUM trial -- a pragmatic trial evaluating mindfulness-based stress reduction for chronic low back pain.

Methods: This qualitative study employed focus groups with participants from 3 clinical sites: Boston Medical Center, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the University of Pittsburgh. Focus group discussions centered on participants' experiences, barriers, and facilitators to engagement in the OPTIMUM trial. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis and the rapid qualitative analysis method, Lightning Reports, for real-time feedback integration into the trial process.

Results: Six focus groups were conducted with 46 participants, of whom 39.1% were first-time research participants and 56.5% identified as Black or African American. Qualitative analysis identified five key themes:1) The importance of providers in the recruitment of cLBP patients, (2) Motivators to participate and stay engaged in clinical research, (3) Participant lack of understanding of randomized control trials (RCTs) and general research processes, (4) Desire for social connection and community-building among participants, and (5) the Positive impact of regular study staff interaction.

Conclusion: Equity in RCTs requires intentional strategies to address barriers to participation and engagement faced by historically underrepresented populations. Engaging health care providers in recruitment, fostering positive interactions with study staff, and creating opportunities for social connection can improve recruitment, retention, and engagement. Incorporating community-engaged research methods and real-time feedback mechanisms can further support inclusivity and equity in pragmatic clinical trials.

在随机对照试验中增加公平性:来自多地点实用临床试验的焦点小组的定性分析。
背景:临床试验中不同人群的代表性不足对卫生保健研究的公平性和外部有效性提出了挑战。为了在实际临床试验中成功招募代表性不足的参与者,研究人员必须了解参与研究的来自不同背景的个体的观点和需求。目的:本定性研究的目的是了解OPTIMUM试验参与者的需求和观点,该试验是一项评估慢性腰痛正念减压的实用试验。方法:本定性研究采用焦点小组,参与者来自3个临床站点:波士顿医学中心、北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校和匹兹堡大学。焦点小组讨论集中于参与者的经历、障碍和参与最优化试验的促进因素。数据分析采用专题内容分析和快速定性分析方法闪电报告,实时反馈集成到试验过程中。结果:共进行了6个焦点小组,共有46名参与者,其中39.1%为首次参与研究,56.5%为黑人或非裔美国人。定性分析确定了五个关键主题:1)提供者在招募cLBP患者中的重要性;(2)参与和保持临床研究的激励因素;(3)参与者缺乏对随机对照试验(rct)和一般研究过程的了解;(4)参与者对社会联系和社区建设的渴望;(5)定期研究人员互动的积极影响。结论:随机对照试验的公平性需要有针对性的策略来解决历史上代表性不足的人群在参与和参与方面面临的障碍。让医疗保健提供者参与招聘,促进与研究人员的积极互动,并创造社会联系的机会,可以改善招聘、保留和参与。结合社区参与的研究方法和实时反馈机制可以进一步支持实用临床试验的包容性和公平性。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信