PURPOSE: Studies have shown an association between socioeconomic status (SES) and quality of oncology care, but less is known about the impact of patient SES on clinical trial participation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We assessed clinical trial participation patterns according to important SES (income, education) and demographic factors in a large sample of patients surveyed via an Internet-based treatment decision tool. Logistic regression, conditioning on type of cancer, was used. Attitudes toward clinical trials were assessed using prespecified items about treatment, treatment tolerability, convenience, and cost. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2011, 5,499 patients were successfully surveyed. Forty percent discussed clinical trials with their physician, 45% of discussions led to physician offers of clinical trial participation, and 51% of offers led to clinical trial participation. The overall clinical trial participation rate was 9%. In univariate models, older patients (P = .002) and patients with lower income (P = .001) and education (P = .02) were less likely to participate in clinical trials. In a multivariable model, income remained a statistically significant predictor of clinical trial participation (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94; P = .01). Even in patients age ≥ 65 years, who have universal access to Medicare, lower income predicted lower trial participation. Cost concerns were much more evident among lower-income patients (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Lower-income patients were less likely to participate in clinical trials, even when considering age group. A better understanding of why income is a barrier may help identify ways to make clinical trials better available to all patients and would increase the generalizability of clinical trial results across all income levels.
PURPOSE: Studies have shown an association between socioeconomic status (SES) and quality of oncology care, but less is known about the impact of patient SES on clinical trial participation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We assessed clinical trial participation patterns according to important SES (income, education) and demographic factors in a large sample of patients surveyed via an Internet-based treatment decision tool. Logistic regression, conditioning on type of cancer, was used. Attitudes toward clinical trials were assessed using prespecified items about treatment, treatment tolerability, convenience, and cost. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2011, 5,499 patients were successfully surveyed. Forty percent discussed clinical trials with their physician, 45% of discussions led to physician offers of clinical trial participation, and 51% of offers led to clinical trial participation. The overall clinical trial participation rate was 9%. In univariate models, older patients (P = .002) and patients with lower income (P = .001) and education (P = .02) were less likely to participate in clinical trials. In a multivariable model, income remained a statistically significant predictor of clinical trial participation (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94; P = .01). Even in patients age ≥ 65 years, who have universal access to Medicare, lower income predicted lower trial participation. Cost concerns were much more evident among lower-income patients (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Lower-income patients were less likely to participate in clinical trials, even when considering age group. A better understanding of why income is a barrier may help identify ways to make clinical trials better available to all patients and would increase the generalizability of clinical trial results across all income levels.
Authors: Paul B Jacobsen; Kristen J Wells; Cathy D Meade; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Ji-Hyun Lee; William J Fulp; Jhanelle E Gray; Rachid C Baz; Gregory M Springett; Richard M Levine; Merry-Jennifer Markham; Fred J Schreiber; Thomas H Cartwright; James M Burke; Robert D Siegel; Mokenge P Malafa; Daniel Sullivan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-05-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Warren B Sateren; Edward L Trimble; Jeffrey Abrams; Otis Brawley; Nancy Breen; Leslie Ford; Mary McCabe; Richard Kaplan; Malcolm Smith; Richard Ungerleider; Michaele C Christian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-04-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dana P Goldman; Sandra H Berry; Mary S McCabe; Meredith L Kilgore; Arnold L Potosky; Michael L Schoenbaum; Matthias Schonlau; Jane C Weeks; Richard Kaplan; Jose J Escarce Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-06-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Eudocia Q Lee; Ugonma N Chukwueke; Shawn L Hervey-Jumper; John F de Groot; Jose Pablo Leone; Terri S Armstrong; Susan M Chang; David Arons; Kathy Oliver; Kay Verble; Al Musella; Nicole Willmarth; Brian M Alexander; Amanda Bates; Lisa Doherty; Evanthia Galanis; Sarah Gaffey; Thomas Halkin; Bret E Friday; Maryam Fouladi; Nancy U Lin; David Macdonald; Minesh P Mehta; Marta Penas-Prado; Michael A Vogelbaum; Solmaz Sahebjam; David Sandak; Martin van den Bent; Michael Weller; David A Reardon; Patrick Y Wen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Catherine H Van Poznak; Amy Darke; Carol M Moinpour; Robert A Bagramian; Mark M Schubert; Julie R Gralow; James L Wade; Joseph M Unger Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-12-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Daniel M Moreira; Lauren E Howard; Katharine N Sourbeer; Hiruni S Amarasekara; Lydia C Chow; Dillon C Cockrell; Connor L Pratson; Brian T Hanyok; William J Aronson; Christopher J Kane; Martha K Terris; Christopher L Amling; Matthew R Cooperberg; Stephen J Freedland Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Nadine J Barrett; Kearston L Ingraham; Kenisha Bethea; Pao Hwa-Lin; Maritza Chirinos; Laura J Fish; Schenita Randolph; Ping Zhang; Peter Le; Demetrius Harvey; Ronald L Godbee; Steven R Patierno Journal: Adv Cancer Res Date: 2020-03-19 Impact factor: 6.242