J D Grill1, A Kind, D Hoang, D L Gillen. 1. Joshua Grill, PhD, 3204 Biological Sciences III, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697,USA, jgrill@uci.edu, t: (949) 824-5905, f: (949) 824-0885.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disparities in clinical research participation perpetuate broader health disparities. Recruitment registries are novel tools to address known challenges in accrual to clinical research. Registries may accelerate accrual, but the utility of these tools to improve generalizability is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To examine the diversity of a local on-line recruitment registry using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), a publicly available metric of neighborhood disadvantage. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Data were collected in the University of California Irvine Consent-to-Contact Registry. PARTICIPANTS: We categorized N=2,837 registry participants based on the ADI decile (collapsed into quintiles) using a state-based rankings. MEASUREMENTS: We examined the proportion of enrollees per ADI quintile and quantified the demographics of these groups. We assessed willingness to participate in studies involving unique research procedures among the ADI groups. RESULTS: Although registry enrollees represented the full spectrum of the ADI, they disproportionately represented less disadvantaged neighborhoods (lowest to highest quintiles: 42%, 30%, 15%, 6%, 7%). Compared to participants from less disadvantaged neighborhoods, participants from more disadvantaged neighborhoods were more often female, of non-white race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Despite demographic differences, ADI groups were observed to have similar willingness to participate in research studies. CONCLUSIONS: People from more disadvantaged neighborhoods may be underrepresented in recruitment registries, increasing the risk that they will be underrepresented when using these tools to facilitate prospective recruitment to clinical research. Once enrolled in registries, participants from more disadvantaged neighborhoods may be equally willing to participate in research. Efforts to increase representation of participants from disadvantaged neighborhoods in registries could be an important first step toward increasing the generalizability of clinical research.
BACKGROUND: Disparities in clinical research participation perpetuate broader health disparities. Recruitment registries are novel tools to address known challenges in accrual to clinical research. Registries may accelerate accrual, but the utility of these tools to improve generalizability is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To examine the diversity of a local on-line recruitment registry using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), a publicly available metric of neighborhood disadvantage. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Data were collected in the University of California Irvine Consent-to-Contact Registry. PARTICIPANTS: We categorized N=2,837 registry participants based on the ADI decile (collapsed into quintiles) using a state-based rankings. MEASUREMENTS: We examined the proportion of enrollees per ADI quintile and quantified the demographics of these groups. We assessed willingness to participate in studies involving unique research procedures among the ADI groups. RESULTS: Although registry enrollees represented the full spectrum of the ADI, they disproportionately represented less disadvantaged neighborhoods (lowest to highest quintiles: 42%, 30%, 15%, 6%, 7%). Compared to participants from less disadvantaged neighborhoods, participants from more disadvantaged neighborhoods were more often female, of non-white race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Despite demographic differences, ADI groups were observed to have similar willingness to participate in research studies. CONCLUSIONS: People from more disadvantaged neighborhoods may be underrepresented in recruitment registries, increasing the risk that they will be underrepresented when using these tools to facilitate prospective recruitment to clinical research. Once enrolled in registries, participants from more disadvantaged neighborhoods may be equally willing to participate in research. Efforts to increase representation of participants from disadvantaged neighborhoods in registries could be an important first step toward increasing the generalizability of clinical research.
Authors: Karen E Joynt Maddox; Mat Reidhead; Jianhui Hu; Amy J H Kind; Alan M Zaslavsky; Elna M Nagasako; David R Nerenz Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Amy J H Kind; Steve Jencks; Jane Brock; Menggang Yu; Christie Bartels; William Ehlenbach; Caprice Greenberg; Maureen Smith Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Nancy L Waltman; Kara M Smith; Kevin A Kupzyk; Joan M Lappe; Lynn R Mack; Laura D Bilek Journal: Nurs Res Date: 2019 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 2.381
Authors: Joshua D Grill; Dan Hoang; Daniel L Gillen; Chelsea G Cox; Adrijana Gombosev; Kirsten Klein; Steve O'Leary; Megan Witbracht; Aimee Pierce Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Jack F V Hunt; William Buckingham; Alice J Kim; Jennifer Oh; Nicholas M Vogt; Erin M Jonaitis; Tenah K Hunt; Megan Zuelsdorff; Ryan Powell; Derek Norton; Robert A Rissman; Sanjay Asthana; Ozioma C Okonkwo; Sterling C Johnson; Amy J H Kind; Barbara B Bendlin Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Adrijana Gombosev; Christian R Salazar; Dan Hoang; Chelsea G Cox; Daniel L Gillen; Joshua D Grill Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2021 Jan-Mar 01 Impact factor: 2.357
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