Coaching Intervention As a Strategy for Minority Recruitment to Cancer Clinical Trials

Copyright © 2013 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Coaching Intervention As a Strategy for Minority Recruitment to Cancer Clinical Trials

1. Paula M. Fracasso , MD, PhD⇑,
2. Sherry A. Goodner, RN, MA,
3. Allison N. Creekmore,
4. Helen P. Morgan,
5. Denise M. Foster,
6. Angela A. Hardmon,
7. Seth J. Engel,
8. Brian C. Springer, MHA,
9. Katherine J. Mathews, MD, MPH, MBA,
10. Edwin B. Fisher, PhD and
11. Mark S. Walker, PhD

+ Author Affiliations

1. Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO

1. Corresponding author: Paula M. Fracasso, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, PO Box 800716, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908; e-mail: Fracasso@virginia.edu.

Abstract

Purpose: Lack of trust and rapport with health care providers has been identified in the under-representation of racial/ethnic minorities within clinical trials. Our study used a coach to promote trust among minority patients with advanced cancer.

Patients and Methods: Minority patients with advanced breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate carcinoma were randomly assigned to receive a coach Intervention (CI) or usual care (UC). All patients completed baseline and 6-month telephone interviews to assess demographics, trust in health care providers, attitudes toward clinical trials, and quality of life. Patients randomly assigned to CI were assigned a coach, who made biweekly contacts for 6 months to address general issues, progress or development in cancer care, and available resources. Patients randomly assigned to UC received the standard of care, without this intervention. Clinical trial enrollment was assessed.

Results: Over 21 months, we screened 268 patients and enrolled 73 African Americans and two Asian Americans. Patients were randomly assigned to CI (n = 38) or to UC (n = 37). Longitudinal analyses were conducted on 69 patients who completed the 6-month follow-up assessment. Trial enrollment was 16 and 13 patients for the CI and UC groups, respectively. This difference was not significant (P = .351). Higher quality of life (1-point odds ratio on Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment–General = 1.033, P = .036) and positive attitudes toward trials predicted enrollment. There was no significant difference between these groups in quality of life, attitudes toward clinical trials, perceptions of racism, trust in doctors, or depression.

Conclusions: Quality of life and positive attitude toward trials predicted trial enrollment, regardless of assignment to CI or UC.