Zachary S Feuer, Richard S Matulewicz, Ramsankar Basak, Donna A Culton, Kimberly Weaver, Kristalyn Gallagher, Hung-Jui Tan, Tracy L Rose, Matthew Milowsky, Marc A Bjurlin
{"title":"Engagement in cancer clinical trials among a nationally representative cancer survivor sample: Motivators, barriers and opportunities for improvement.","authors":"Zachary S Feuer, Richard S Matulewicz, Ramsankar Basak, Donna A Culton, Kimberly Weaver, Kristalyn Gallagher, Hung-Jui Tan, Tracy L Rose, Matthew Milowsky, Marc A Bjurlin","doi":"10.1177/03008916251347175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Most patients with cancer do not participate in a clinical trial. Understanding clinical participation rates, and the barriers and motivators that influence participation may help identify opportunities for improvement in accrual.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional analysis of cancer survivors was conducted using the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) administered in 2020. Primary outcome was clinical trial participation amongst patients with cancer. Secondary outcomes were motivators and barriers to influence clinical trial participation. Logistic regression was employed to assess the association of clinical trials being discussed as a cancer treatment option with social determinants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six hundred and eighteen respondents (weighted population estimate 22,723,047) with a self-reported history of cancer were included. Overall, 15.7% reported an invitation to participate in a clinical trial, of which 37.8% participated. Clinical trials were discussed as a cancer treatment option amongst 13.5% of respondents. Knowledge of clinical trials was low (9.3%). Reported motivators included trying new care (72.3%), wanting to get better (88.9%), getting paid (40.1%), helping other people (73.0%), and encouragement from the doctor (73.7%) or family/friends (59.5%). Reported barriers included getting transportation, childcare or paid time off work (42.4%), and standard care not covered by insurance (69.6%). Race (Other, OR 3.84) and income (<$35k, OR 5.84) were associated with discussion of clinical trials as a cancer treatment option.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinical trial treatment discussion, invitation, and participation are low among patients with a history of cancer. Although the study identified multiple motivators and barriers to participation, improvement in the rates of discussion and invitation to participate in a clinical trial are required. Nevertheless, addressing the identified barriers and motivators that influence clinical trial participation may be a strategy to optimize patient enrollment.</p>","PeriodicalId":23349,"journal":{"name":"Tumori","volume":" ","pages":"3008916251347175"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tumori","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03008916251347175","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Most patients with cancer do not participate in a clinical trial. Understanding clinical participation rates, and the barriers and motivators that influence participation may help identify opportunities for improvement in accrual.
Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of cancer survivors was conducted using the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) administered in 2020. Primary outcome was clinical trial participation amongst patients with cancer. Secondary outcomes were motivators and barriers to influence clinical trial participation. Logistic regression was employed to assess the association of clinical trials being discussed as a cancer treatment option with social determinants.
Results: Six hundred and eighteen respondents (weighted population estimate 22,723,047) with a self-reported history of cancer were included. Overall, 15.7% reported an invitation to participate in a clinical trial, of which 37.8% participated. Clinical trials were discussed as a cancer treatment option amongst 13.5% of respondents. Knowledge of clinical trials was low (9.3%). Reported motivators included trying new care (72.3%), wanting to get better (88.9%), getting paid (40.1%), helping other people (73.0%), and encouragement from the doctor (73.7%) or family/friends (59.5%). Reported barriers included getting transportation, childcare or paid time off work (42.4%), and standard care not covered by insurance (69.6%). Race (Other, OR 3.84) and income (<$35k, OR 5.84) were associated with discussion of clinical trials as a cancer treatment option.
Conclusion: Clinical trial treatment discussion, invitation, and participation are low among patients with a history of cancer. Although the study identified multiple motivators and barriers to participation, improvement in the rates of discussion and invitation to participate in a clinical trial are required. Nevertheless, addressing the identified barriers and motivators that influence clinical trial participation may be a strategy to optimize patient enrollment.
目的:大多数癌症患者不参加临床试验。了解临床参与率,以及影响参与率的障碍和激励因素,可能有助于确定改善应计收益的机会。方法:利用2020年实施的健康信息国家趋势调查(HINTS)对癌症幸存者进行横断面分析。主要结局是癌症患者参与临床试验。次要结局是影响临床试验参与的动机和障碍。采用逻辑回归来评估临床试验作为癌症治疗选择与社会决定因素的关系。结果:618名受访者(加权人口估计22,723,047人)自我报告有癌症病史。总体而言,15.7%的人报告被邀请参加临床试验,其中37.8%的人参加了试验。13.5%的受访者认为临床试验是癌症治疗的一种选择。临床试验知识较低(9.3%)。报告的动机包括尝试新疗法(72.3%)、想要好转(88.9%)、获得报酬(40.1%)、帮助他人(73.0%)、医生(73.7%)或家人/朋友(59.5%)的鼓励。报告的障碍包括交通、儿童保育或带薪休假(42.4%),以及保险未涵盖的标准护理(69.6%)。种族(Other, OR 3.84)和收入(结论:有癌症病史的患者对临床试验治疗的讨论、邀请和参与程度较低。虽然该研究确定了参与的多种动机和障碍,但需要提高讨论和邀请参与临床试验的比率。然而,解决已确定的影响临床试验参与的障碍和激励因素可能是优化患者入组的策略。
期刊介绍:
Tumori Journal covers all aspects of cancer science and clinical practice with a strong focus on prevention, translational medicine and clinically relevant reports. We invite the publication of randomized trials and reports on large, consecutive patient series that investigate the real impact of new techniques, drugs and devices inday-to-day clinical practice.