Exploring Racial Disparities in Awareness and Perceptions of Oncology Clinical Trials: Cross-Sectional Analysis of Baseline Data From the mychoice Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Black/African American adults are underrepresented in oncology clinical trials in the United States, despite efforts at narrowing this disparity. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore differences in how Black/African American oncology patients perceive clinical trials to improve support for the clinical trial participation decision-making process. METHODS: As part of a larger randomized controlled trial, a total of 244 adult oncology patients receiving active treatment or follow-up care completed a cross-sectional baseline survey on sociodemographic characteristics, clinical trial knowledge, health literacy, perceptions of cancer clinical trials, patient activation, patient advocacy, health care self-efficacy, decisional conflict, and clinical trial intentions. Self-reported race was dichotomized into Black/African American and non-Black/African American. As appropriate, 2-tailed t tests and chi-square tests of independence were used to examine differences between groups. RESULTS: Black/African American participants had lower clinical trial knowledge (P=.006), lower health literacy (P<.001), and more medical mistrust (all P values <.05) than non-Black/African American participants. While intentions to participate in a clinical trial, if offered, did not vary between Black/African American and non-Black/African American participants, Black/African American participants indicated lower awareness of clinical trials, fewer benefits of clinical trials, and more uncertainty around clinical trial decision-making (all P values <.05). There were no differences for other variables. CONCLUSIONS: Despite no significant differences in intent to participate in a clinical trial if offered and high overall trust in individual health care providers among both groups, beliefs persist about barriers to and benefits of clinical trial participation among Black/African American patients. Findings highlight specific ways that education and resources about clinical trials could be tailored to better suit the informational and decision-making needs and preferences of Black/African American oncology patients.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".