Galen Joseph1, Daniel Dohan. 1. Department of Anthropology, History, and Social Medicine, and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California 94143, USA. gjoseph@cc.ucsf.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Only 2.5% of adults and even fewer minorities participate in cancer therapeutic trials. Researchers have concluded that many barriers to participation stem from how recruitment is performed by clinician investigators. The objective of the current research was to document specifically how these barriers impede recruitment in the clinical setting. METHODS: The authors conducted a case study of recruitment in an academic medical center using ethnographic research methods (direct observation of provider-patient interactions and in-depth interviews with providers) to collect data. Qualitative data analysis was used to identify themes related to the provider's role in the recruitment processes. RESULTS: In the clinics that were studied, the authors observed that providers subjectively assessed which patients seemed to be 'good study patients' to target for recruitment. 'Good study patients' were identified as those who were able to adhere to complex trial protocols, thus helping clinician researchers to complete studies in a timely and efficient manner. These patients were perceived as meticulous, proactive, and compliant; they were considered good communicators; and they were embedded in the kinds of strong social support networks that facilitated their trials participation. CONCLUSIONS: The providers that were studied sought 'good study patients' for therapeutic trials because they wanted to perform studies in a timely and efficient manner. Future research should examine whether providers in other settings also target their recruitment efforts for this or other reasons. Further research also should consider whether differentially recruiting 'good patients' can impact the ethnic/racial diversity or other characteristics of trial participants in ways that may bias the outcomes or conclusions of therapeutic trials. (c) 2008 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Only 2.5% of adults and even fewer minorities participate in cancer therapeutic trials. Researchers have concluded that many barriers to participation stem from how recruitment is performed by clinician investigators. The objective of the current research was to document specifically how these barriers impede recruitment in the clinical setting. METHODS: The authors conducted a case study of recruitment in an academic medical center using ethnographic research methods (direct observation of provider-patient interactions and in-depth interviews with providers) to collect data. Qualitative data analysis was used to identify themes related to the provider's role in the recruitment processes. RESULTS: In the clinics that were studied, the authors observed that providers subjectively assessed which patients seemed to be 'good study patients' to target for recruitment. 'Good study patients' were identified as those who were able to adhere to complex trial protocols, thus helping clinician researchers to complete studies in a timely and efficient manner. These patients were perceived as meticulous, proactive, and compliant; they were considered good communicators; and they were embedded in the kinds of strong social support networks that facilitated their trials participation. CONCLUSIONS: The providers that were studied sought 'good study patients' for therapeutic trials because they wanted to perform studies in a timely and efficient manner. Future research should examine whether providers in other settings also target their recruitment efforts for this or other reasons. Further research also should consider whether differentially recruiting 'good patients' can impact the ethnic/racial diversity or other characteristics of trial participants in ways that may bias the outcomes or conclusions of therapeutic trials. (c) 2008 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Roland B Walter; Frederick R Appelbaum; Martin S Tallman; Noel S Weiss; Richard A Larson; Elihu H Estey Journal: Blood Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Margo Michaels; Elisa S Weiss; John A Guidry; Natasha Blakeney; Liz Swords; Brian Gibbs; Samantha Yeun; Bruce Rytkonen; Robert Goodman; S Lisbeth Jarama; Amanda L Greene; Shilpa Patel Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Linda K Parreco; Rhonda W DeJoice; Holly A Massett; Rose Mary Padberg; Sona S Thakkar Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2012-03-27 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Sarah B Garrett; Christopher J Koenig; Laura Trupin; Fay J Hlubocky; Christopher K Daugherty; Anne Reinert; Pamela Munster; Daniel Dohan Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lauren M Hamel; Louis A Penner; Terrance L Albrecht; Elisabeth Heath; Clement K Gwede; Susan Eggly Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.302
Authors: Mona N Fouad; Aras Acemgil; Sejong Bae; Andres Forero; Nedra Lisovicz; Michelle Y Martin; Gabriela R Oates; Edward E Partridge; Selwyn M Vickers Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 3.840