Access to Cancer Treatment Clinical Trials for Racialized Adults and Older Adults: An Equity-Focused Rapid Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE The intersection of race and older age exacerbates health disparities within marginalized communities. However, mitigating these disparities starts from ensuring enrollment of these racialized older adults into clinical trials. Therefore, this scoping review identified barriers, facilitators, and solutions to enhancing access to clinical trials among racialized adults with cancer. METHODS This scoping review was conducted based on the Arksey and O'Malley framework and the work of Levac et al. The databases searched included Medline ALL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Global Index Medicus. Articles from inception to December 12, 2023, were collected. Abstract and full-text screening was conducted by pairs of reviewers. Data abstraction was performed by one reviewer, with verification by a second reviewer. Included articles involved adults 18 years and older who identified as racialized persons with cancer or clinicians caring for racialized adults with cancer. RESULTS Ultimately, 80 papers reporting on 76 studies were included. The most common barrier reported by patients was limited awareness of trials, whereas clinicians reported insufficient awareness of available clinical trials as the most common barrier. Establishing trusting relationships with clinicians was the most common patient-described facilitator. Similarly, clinicians reported pre-existing trusting relationships with patients as the most common facilitator. Intervention studies used educational materials offered in non-English languages and trial materials featuring racialized patients. While these interventions improved patients' willingness to participate, most did not report statistical inference results. CONCLUSION Although many barriers exist to racialized older adults' access to cancer clinical trials, future intervention studies should prioritize assessing their enrollment rates to improve the health equity of racialized older adults through a more representative evidence base.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".