| Literature DB >> 29317809 |
Lennox A Graham1, Julius Ngwa2, Oyonumo Ntekim3, Oludolapo Ogunlana4, Saba Wolday4, Steven Johnson3, Megan Johnson4, Chimene Castor3, Thomas V Fungwe3, Thomas O Obisesan4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Historically, Blacks have been disproportionately underrepresented in clinical trials. Outcomes associated with low Blacks' participation in research include poor understanding of the predictors and treatment of the disease, increasing health disparities, poor health equity, and suboptimal wellness of the nation as a whole. To address this gap in research participation, we analyzed our recruitment data to identify the most effective strategies for enrolling older Blacks in clinical trials.Entities:
Keywords: Blacks; clinical trials; community outreach; recruitment strategies; screening
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29317809 PMCID: PMC5743176 DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S130112
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Interv Aging ISSN: 1176-9092 Impact factor: 4.458
Demographics and cognitive characteristics of the sample (N=3,266)
| Characteristics | All participants (n=3,266) | Blacks (n=2,830) | Whites (n=280) | Hispanics (n=55) | Asians (n=52) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female (%) | 2,260 (69.20%) | 1,995 (70.49%) | 150 (53.57%) | 43 (78.18%) | 33 (63.46%) | <0.0001 |
| Age – yrs | 60.27 (12.91) | 60.10 (12.91) | 61.13 (12.52) | 57.96 (15.07) | 62.05 (12.12) | 0.232 |
| Diagnosis (%) | ||||||
| Normal | 1,549 (59.49%) | 1,298 (58.71%) | 156 (61.90%) | 35 (68.63%) | 27 (61.36%) | <0.0001 |
| MCI | 957 (36.75%) | 846 (38.26%) | 66 (26.19%) | 15 (29.41%) | 17 (38.64%) | |
| AD | 98 (3.76%) | 67 (3.03%) | 30 (11.90%) | 1 (1.96%) | 0 (0.00%) | |
| Education – yrs | 14.55 (3.40) | 14.43 (3.37) | 15.57 (3.16) | 13.55 (4.38) | 15.40 (3.40) | <0.0001 |
| MMSE | 27.47 (5.86) | 27.52 (6.16) | 27.60 (3.16) | 25.30 (4.75) | 27.12 (2.80) | 0.049 |
| Adjusted MMSE | 25.68 (4.08) | 25.74 (4.05) | 25.50 (4.60) | 24.19 (4.30) | 25.48 (2.81) | 0.069 |
Notes:
35 subjects of other race and 14 subjects of mixed race. Data presented as mean (± standard deviation) or n (%).
Abbreviations: MCI, Mild Cognitive Impairment; AD, Alzheimer’s Disease; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Exam.
Characteristics of the sample by recruitment sources
| Recruitment strategy | All participants (n=1,990 | Females (n=1,439) | Males (n=509) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Advertisement | 304 (15.28%) | 215 (14.94%) | 86 (16.90%) | 0.294 |
| Church | 152 (7.64%) | 118 (8.20%) | 33 (6.48%) | 0.213 |
| Family | 40 (2.01%) | 19 (1.32%) | 21 (4.13%) | 0.0001 |
| Friend | 91 (4.57%) | 70 (4.86%) | 21 (4.13%) | 0.497 |
| Health fair | 846 (42.51%) | 612 (42.53%) | 200 (39.29%) | 0.203 |
| Mass mailing | 92 (4.62%) | 64 (4.45%) | 28 (5.50%) | 0.336 |
| Newspaper | 207 (10.40%) | 158 (10.98%) | 46 (9.04%) | 0.219 |
| Referral | 68 (3.42%) | 38 (2.64%) | 30 (5.89%) | 0.0006 |
| Wellness center | 169 (8.49%) | 130 (9.03%) | 38 (7.47%) | 0.279 |
Notes:
840 Subjects with missing recruitment category; 42 subjects with missing gender;
test of proportion to obtain p-values. Data presented as n (%).
Figure 1Pie chart showing the overall relative distribution of strategies used to engage the community in the sample.
Figure 2Gender-based distribution of strategies used to engage the community in the sample.
Logistic regression analysis of the relationships of race to recruitment strategies among Blacks vs others
| Characteristics | OR | 95% Confidence | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interval | |||
| Age at screening | 1.001 | 0.990 | 1.012 |
| Education | 0.960 | 0.924 | 0.998 |
| Gender | 0.751 | 0.565 | 0.999 |
| Church | 7.625 | 2.767 | 21.010 |
| Health fair | 1.837 | 1.360 | 2.480 |
| Mass mailing | 2.330 | 1.141 | 4.759 |
| Wellness center | 1.775 | 1.034 | 3.047 |
Notes: Logistic regression analysis comparing recruitment strategies among “Blacks” vs other race; Stepwise regression model adjusting for age at screening, education, and gender (male vs female).
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.