Elizabeth G Moore1, Myra Roche2, Christine Rini3, Edward W Corty4, Zahra Girnary5, Julianne M O'Daniel2, Feng-Chang Lin6, Giselle Corbie-Smith2, James P Evans2, Gail E Henderson2, Jonathan S Berg2. 1. Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 2. School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 3. Hackensack Meridian Health Network, Hackensack, New Jersey, USA. 4. School of Medicine, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA. 5. School of Medicine, University of South Carolina, Durham, South Carolina, USA. 6. School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Recent genomic medicine initiatives underscore the importance of including diverse participants in research. Considerable literature has identified barriers to and facilitators of increasing diversity, yet disparities in recruiting and retaining adequate numbers of participants from diverse groups continue to limit the generalizability of clinical genomic research. METHODS: The North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next-gen Exome Sequencing study employed evidence-based strategies to enhance the participation of under-represented minority patients. In this study, we evaluate the impact of our efforts by systematically analyzing the "cascade" of attrition of participants throughout study interactions. RESULTS: Although successful in recruiting a cohort that included ~30% non-Caucasian patients overall, the study still enrolled and retained a lower proportion of minorities compared to the pool of eligible patients who were nominated. We evaluated sociodemographic characteristics and related variables as potential factors associated with attrition throughout these phases of the study. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that varied approaches will be needed to increase participation in genomic medicine research. Our findings highlight factors to consider when developing strategies to address this critical need. Failing to include a broad range of populations in research studies will exacerbate existing disparities in the translation of genomic sequencing to medical care.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Recent genomic medicine initiatives underscore the importance of including diverse participants in research. Considerable literature has identified barriers to and facilitators of increasing diversity, yet disparities in recruiting and retaining adequate numbers of participants from diverse groups continue to limit the generalizability of clinical genomic research. METHODS: The North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next-gen Exome Sequencing study employed evidence-based strategies to enhance the participation of under-represented minority patients. In this study, we evaluate the impact of our efforts by systematically analyzing the "cascade" of attrition of participants throughout study interactions. RESULTS: Although successful in recruiting a cohort that included ~30% non-Caucasian patients overall, the study still enrolled and retained a lower proportion of minorities compared to the pool of eligible patients who were nominated. We evaluated sociodemographic characteristics and related variables as potential factors associated with attrition throughout these phases of the study. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that varied approaches will be needed to increase participation in genomic medicine research. Our findings highlight factors to consider when developing strategies to address this critical need. Failing to include a broad range of populations in research studies will exacerbate existing disparities in the translation of genomic sequencing to medical care.
Authors: Jean G Ford; Mollie W Howerton; Gabriel Y Lai; Tiffany L Gary; Shari Bolen; M Chris Gibbons; Jon Tilburt; Charles Baffi; Teerath Peter Tanpitukpongse; Renee F Wilson; Neil R Powe; Eric B Bass Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Mirar Bristol; Susan M Domchek; Peter W Groeneveld; Younji Kim; U Nkiru Motanya; Judy A Shea; Katrina Armstrong Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: D Cragun; D Bonner; J Kim; M R Akbari; S A Narod; A Gomez-Fuego; J D Garcia; S T Vadaparampil; Tuya Pal Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Raegan W Durant; Jennifer A Wenzel; Isabel C Scarinci; Debora A Paterniti; Mona N Fouad; Thelma C Hurd; Michelle Y Martin Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sam S Oh; Joshua Galanter; Neeta Thakur; Maria Pino-Yanes; Nicolas E Barcelo; Marquitta J White; Danielle M de Bruin; Ruth M Greenblatt; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Alan H B Wu; Luisa N Borrell; Chris Gunter; Neil R Powe; Esteban G Burchard Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-12-15 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Margaret Waltz; Anya E R Prince; Julianne M O'Daniel; Ann Katherine M Foreman; Bradford C Powell; Jonathan S Berg Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Jonathan S Berg; Jeannette T Bensen; Brooke S Staley; Laura V Milko; Margaret Waltz; Ida Griesemer; Lonna Mollison; Tracey L Grant; Laura Farnan; Myra Roche; Angelo Navas; Alexandra Lightfoot; Ann Katherine M Foreman; Julianne M O'Daniel; Suzanne C O'Neill; Feng-Chang Lin; Tamara S Roman; Alicia Brandt; Bradford C Powell; Christine Rini Journal: Trials Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 2.279