MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611399115

Understanding the Perspectives of Potential Minority Participants on Clinical Trial Enrollment

2017· article· en· W2611399115 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSeton Hall University eRepository (Seton Hall University) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research has shown that there continues to be insufficient recruitment of minorities in clinical trials. By eliminating this group from research, not only does it impact the success of clinical trials by making it more difficult to achieve recruitment targets, but it also leads to an inability to identify appropriate treatments and interventions for all individuals, especially as racial/ethnic factors can play a role in the efficacy and safety of a treatment and intervention. The purpose of the study was to understand the perspectives of minority healthcare students/professionals on clinical trial enrollment. Focusing on this population would shed light on how minority individuals feel about clinical trial enrollment and whether healthcare professionals can be used as an avenue to share clinical research opportunities with the general minority population. The study was a general qualitative study utilizing a semi-structured interview guide to collect the data. The interview guide was designed to explore the thought process of minorities when it comes to enrollment and understand what would influence their decision. The sample population consisted of 20 individuals who were recruited in an educational setting with the participants being graduate healthcare students either working at the same time as healthcare professionals or who would work in the near future as healthcare professionals. The data analysis strategy was data driven, also known as inductive analysis, and was done through coding. Eight themes that influence clinical trial participation by minorities emerged from the interviews which were benefits, negative aspects, need for information, support, diversity, religion and faith values, family and friends, and wanting better collective health. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework was used as a lens to interpret the themes and found that it explained some of the themes. The results of the study show that while minority healthcare students/professionals find clinical trials innovative and important, they do not understand the specifics about them and not all are open to participating. Therefore, there is a need to address potential minority participants’ decisional needs and in general, educate, or there will continue to be an inequality in treatments and interventions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.620
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.132 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it