Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Previous studies support cultural tailoring of recruitment materials as a strategy to promote the enrollment of minoritized groups in clinical trials. However, there is a lack of guidance for research teams to create culturally tailored materials, potentially contributing to low recruitment rates of minoritized groups. We describe the development and pilot testing of recruitment material guidelines used to culturally tailor clinical trial recruitment materials targeting African Americans and Latinos. Methods The guideline development team consisted of investigators, research staff, and community leaders and members experienced in the recruitment and community engagement of minoritized groups. The recruitment material guidelines were developed using the literature, focus groups with African Americans and Latinos, the teams’ research experience, and guidance from a community advisory board. To assess the effectiveness of the guidelines, a pilot study was conducted comparing advertisement click-through rates and enrollment outcomes between two institutions differing in use of culturally tailored versus non-tailored Facebook banner ads for the “Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness” (ADAPTABLE) study. Results Five themes emerged from focus groups: (1) employ diversity and inclusion in recruitment efforts; (2) access multiple recruitment channels to increase reach and possible participation; (3) increase your “footwork”; (4) personalize outreach and recruitment to specific groups’ beliefs and values; (5) align recruitment messaging with language preferences and motivations for study participation; and (6) specify incentives for participation. Guidelines were: 1) be inclusive; 2) use all forms of media; 3) take a personalized approach; 4) align recruitment messaging with motivations for study participation; 5) specify incentives; and 6) get out into the community. Additional guidelines were developed addressing specific considerations for images and language when targeting African American and Latino populations. Pilot study results demonstrated that clicks per impression ratio (0.47 clicks per impression vs. 0.03 clicks per impression) and the percentage of African American enrollment were significantly higher when using tailored compared to non-tailored ads (12.8% vs. 8.3%, respectively). Conclusion The recruitment material guidelines offer practical recommendations to reach diverse populations for clinical trial participation more effectively. Our preliminary data supports use of these guidelines as a strategy to enhance recruitment of minoritized groups into clinical research studies.

Amid increasing interest in improving the patient-centeredness of research, new forms of engagement are emerging that enable researchers to get input from community members on research goals, methods, and implementation. This input often includes stories, which are useful for understanding lived experiences of illness and encounters with health care organizations, and for locating these experiences within larger meta-narratives of specific communities. We analyzed the stories in transcripts of 13 Community Engagement Studios and identified 4 major functions that the stories served in the sessions. Major functions included: (1) establishing mutual understanding, (2) adding expansion and depth, (3) characterizing abstract concepts, and (4) providing context for experience, with the latter being the most frequent. We assert that stories can serve to better communicate the complex contexts of patient experiences, helping to align research priorities and research design with community interests, leading to more patient-centered innovations in clinical practice.

Historically, trust in biomedical research has been lower among minoritized racial and ethnic groups who are underrepresented in and excluded from research, with the same groups experiencing worse health outcomes. Unfortunately, instruments that measure trust may not capture components of trust relevant to minoritized racial and ethnic groups. To develop and validate a scale to measure trust in biomedical research among minoritized racial and ethnic groups. This cross-sectional, community-based survey study compared trust and distrust in biomedical research among Black, Latino, and White subgroups in the US using the Perceptions of Research Trustworthiness (PoRT) scale. The scale was developed between March 22, 2016, and September 19, 2018, as part of this study, and its structure, reliability, and validity were examined during pilot (n = 381) and validation (n = 532) phases between February 4, 2019, and July 27, 2021. Convenience samples of adult participants (aged ≥18 years) were recruited locally (Nashville, Tennessee, and San Antonio, Texas) and nationally through the ResearchMatch and Cint online platforms. Overall and individual item Trust and Distrust subscale scores were compared. Overall Trust and Distrust scores were compared by race and ethnicity using a Kruskal-Wallis H test and individual item scores were compared using independent samples t test. Of the 532 participants in the scale validation study, 144 (27.1%) were Black, 90 (16.9%) were Latino, and 282 (53.0%) were White. Participants had a median age of 43 years (range, 18-90 years), 352 (66.2%) were women, and 198 (37.2%) had educational attainment levels less than a college degree. Factor analysis of the 18-item PoRT scale revealed a 2-factor structure with two 9-item PoRT subscales (Trust and Distrust), which demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.72 and 0.87, respectively). Mean (SD) Trust subscale scores were lower among Black (34.33 [2.02]) and Latino (34.55 [1.97]) participants compared with White participants (36.32 [1.81]; P < .001). Mean (SD) Distrust subscale scores were higher among Black (21.0 [2.15]) and Latino (20.53 [2.21]) participants compared with White participants (18.4 [2.03]; P < .001). Individual item results showed that Black and Latino participants were less trusting and more distrusting than White individuals on items related to risks, harms, secrecy, confidentiality, and privacy. These findings suggest that the PoRT scale incorporates trust and trustworthiness concepts relevant among Black and Latino individuals and may allow more precise assessment of trust in research among these groups.

Importance Multicenter clinical trials play a critical role in the translational processes that enable new treatments to reach all people and improve public health. However, conducting multicenter randomized clinical trials (mRCT) presents challenges. The Trial Innovation Network (TIN), established in 2016 to partner with the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium of academic medical institutions in the implementation of mRCTs, consists of 3 Trial Innovation Centers (TICs) and 1 Recruitment Innovation Center (RIC). This unique partnership has aimed to address critical roadblocks that impede the design and conduct of mRCTs, in expectation of accelerating the translation of novel interventions to clinical practice. The TIN’s challenges and achievements are described in this article, along with examples of innovative resources and processes that may serve as useful models for other clinical trial networks providing operational and recruitment support. Observations The TIN has successfully integrated more than 60 CTSA institution program hubs into a functional network for mRCT implementation and optimization. A unique support system for investigators has been created that includes the development and deployment of novel tools, operational and recruitment services, consultation models, and rapid communication pathways designed to reduce delays in trial start-up, enhance recruitment, improve engagement of diverse research participants and communities, and streamline processes that improve the quality, efficiency, and conduct of mRCTs. These resources and processes span the clinical trial spectrum and enable the TICs and RIC to serve as coordinating centers, data centers, and recruitment specialists to assist trials across the National Institutes of Health and other agencies. The TIN’s impact has been demonstrated through its response to both historical operational challenges and emerging public health emergencies, including the national opioid public health crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions and Relevance The TIN has worked to reduce barriers to implementing mRCTs and to improve mRCT processes and operations by providing needed clinical trial infrastructure and resources to CTSA investigators. These resources have been instrumental in more quickly and efficiently translating research discoveries into beneficial patient treatments.