Abstract 626: Black/African American participation in cancer clinical trials: Healthcare professional perspectives
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Purpose: The purpose of this community-based participatory research (CBPR) was to identify barriers and facilitators to Black/African American engagement and inclusion in cancer clinical trials in the Detroit Metropolitan Area. This presentation focuses on data from healthcare professionals at Henry Ford Cancer Institute. Design: The CBPR approach included the establishment of a Steering Committee composed of researchers, health professionals, and representatives of eight diverse organizations representing African American, African Caribbean, and Ghanaian communities. A qualitative methodology was employed to obtain contextual and experiential data. Fourteen healthcare professionals participated in individual interviews including physicians, surgeons, research nurses and navigators, clinical research coordinators, and cancer trial investigators. Interview guides were developed based on an extensive literature review. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were coded and searches were conducted to identify themes within the coded data. Outcomes: Data were categorized into six constructs: 1. disparities; 2. trust; 3. advantages and disadvantages to trial participation; 4. clinical and system challenges for physicians’ trial engagement; 5. trial participant selection criteria; and 6. clinical trial recruitment protocols. Themes within disparities include inequitable access to healthcare and patient selection bias. Patient and community trust and distrust were discussed within historical and experiential abuses and neglect in Black/African American communities. Physicians perceived trial advantages to include access to new therapies and patient-internal rewards, e.g., contributing to wellbeing of future generations. Disadvantages included participants’ financial, social, and psychological costs. Physician challenges included awareness of trials, time allocation, and systemic expectations of output. Selection criteria themes were focused on the internal procedures required to identify eligible patients and the barriers associated with trial sponsor requirements. Recruitment barriers included complex consenting procedures and resources to support informed patient decision-making. Study respondents provided recommendations to address barriers for both patients and healthcare providers. Conclusions: Increasing diversity in clinical trials requires understanding barriers and facilitators at multiple levels including communities, patients and their families, healthcare professionals, health system leadership, and trial sponsors. Recognizing the experiences and perceptions of healthcare professionals is one step toward addressing the complex social environments in which cancer clinical trials reside. Recommendations from this study are being piloted. Citation Format: Linda Kaljee, Sylvester Antwi, Doreen Dankerlui, Donna Harris, Barbara Israel, Denise White-Perkins, Valerie Ofori Aboah, Livingstone Aduse-Poku, Harriet Larrious-Lartey, Barbara Brush, Chris Coombe, La'Toshia Patman, Nayomi Cawthorne, Sophia Chue, Zachary Rowe, Cassandra Mills, Kurt Fernando, Gwendolyn Daniels, Eleanor Walker, Evelyn M. Jiagge. Black/African American participation in cancer clinical trials: Healthcare professional perspectives [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 626.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,030 | 0,033 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,016 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».