ArticleCancers2025
A Formative Evaluation of Interventions to Enhance Clinical Trial Diversity Guided by the Socioecological Model.
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesRacial and ethnic minority patients are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials (CCTs) and multilevel strategies are required to increase participation. This study describes barriers and facilitators to minority CCT participation alongside feedback on a multilevel intervention (MLI) designed to reduce participation barriers, as posited by the socioecological model (SEM).
methodsInterviews with Moffitt Cancer Center (MCC) physicians, community physicians, patients with cancer, community residents, and clinical research coordinators (CRCs) were conducted from June 2023-February 2024. Verbal responses were analyzed using thematic analysis and categorized into SEM levels. Mean helpfulness scores rating interventions (from 1 (not helpful) to 5 (very helpful)) were summarized.
resultsApproximately 50 interviews were completed. Thematic findings confirmed CCT referral and enrollment barriers across all SEM levels. At the community level, MCC patients and community residents felt that community health educators can improve patient experiences and suggested they connect patients to social/financial resources, assist with patient registration, and provide CCT education. While physicians and CRCs reacted positively to all institutional-level tools, the highest scored tool simultaneously addressed CCT referral and enrollment at the institution (e.g., trial identification/referrals) and interpersonal level (communication platform for community and MCC physicians) (mean = 4.27). At the intrapersonal level, patients were enthusiastic about a digital CCT decision aid (mean = 4.53) and suggested its integration into MCC's patient portal.
conclusionsResults underscore the value of conducting formative research to tailor interventions to target population needs. Our approach can be leveraged by future researchers seeking to evaluate MLIs addressing additional CCT challenges or broader health topics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.