Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39502080›Full record

ArticleJournal of healthcare leadership2024

Barriers to Recruitment and Retention Among Underrepresented Populations in Cancer Clinical Trials: A Qualitative Study of the Perspectives of Clinical Trial Research Coordinating Staff at a Cancer Center.

Sumbul Yousafi, Pavani Rangachari, Margaret L Holland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of healthcare leadership, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. A model to predict participant retention in longitudinal acute pancreatitis studies.Pancreatology : official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) ... [et al.] · 2025
    Article
  6. Global determinants of gynecologic cancer incidence and mortality: A cluster-based analysis with predictive insights.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sumbul YousafiDepartment of Population Health and Leadership, University of New Haven, West Haven, CT, USA.
Pavani RangachariDepartment of Population Health and Leadership, University of New Haven, West Haven, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9464-7299
Margaret L HollandDepartment of Population Health and Leadership, University of New Haven, West Haven, CT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Although US research agencies have instituted peer review processes to require participant diversity in clinical trials before funding decisions are made, the underrepresentation of certain populations (eg, racial and ethnic minorities) in clinical trials remains a persistent challenge in biomedical research. This issue has the potential to affect the generalizability of findings and impede efforts to ensure the provision of high-quality healthcare across all populations. In this study, we examined barriers to the recruitment and retention of underrepresented populations in cancer clinical trials from the perspective of research coordinating staff. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted at a US-based academic cancer center and included 6 patient-facing staff (clinical research coordinators) and 6 non-patient-facing staff (regulatory and financial specialists). Interview data were subjected to thematic analysis. To provide additional organizational context, descriptive data were obtained on the characteristics of clinical trials undertaken at the cancer center. Results: The following themes emerged from the staff interviews: 1) absence of a consistent structure for decision-making and problem-solving related to recruitment and retention, 2) staff shortages, 3) administrative burden, and 4) lack of resources. In addition, descriptive data revealed that nearly half the trials, 64/134 (48%), offered informed consent only in English, and only 3/134 (2%) offered participant incentives or reimbursement (eg, for transportation). These interrelated organizational issues were indicative of inadequate systems for ensuring diverse and equitable representation in cancer clinical trials. Conclusion: Results indicate that overcoming barriers to underrepresentation may require dedicated support from sponsoring agencies in the form of evidence-based guidelines, learning collaboratives to facilitate implementation, technical support, resources, and oversight. For progress to be made therefore, both sponsors and cancer centers may need to assume joint responsibility for the implementation of effective systems for ensuring diverse and equitable representation in cancer clinical trials.

Indexed as

academic cancer centersclinical trialsdiversityequityhealth disparitiesinclusionrecruitment and retentionunderrepresented populations

Identifiers

PMID39502080
PMCPMC11537200

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.