Heumann Christine, Cohn Susan E, Krishnan Supriya, Castillo-Mancilla Jose R, Cespedes Michelle, Floris-Moore Michelle, Smith Kimberly Y
From the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, the Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, the University of Colorado-Aurora Medical Center, Aurora, the New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, and the Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
South Med J. 2015 Feb;108(2):107-16. doi: 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000234.
To ensure generalizability of clinical research results, it is important to enroll a heterogeneous population that is representative of the target clinical population. Earlier studies have found regional variation in participation in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinical trials, with the lowest rates seen in the southern United States. Rates of new HIV diagnoses are highest in the South, highlighting the need for in-depth understanding of disparities in clinical trial participation. We evaluated whether regional variation in study participation remains, and describe factors that facilitate or prevent HIV clinical trial participation by region.
A one-time, anonymous, bilingual, self-administered survey was conducted among HIV-infected adults receiving HIV care at all 47 domestic AIDS Clinical Trials Group clinical research sites, with a goal of completing 50 surveys per site. χ(2) tests were used to evaluate differences in knowledge of and participation in HIV clinical trials by region, including Northeast, Midwest, South, and West regions. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the effect of region on knowledge of and participation in HIV clinical trials.
Of 2263 completed surveys, 2125 were included in this analysis. The proportion of respondents in the South who reported knowledge of studies (66%) was significantly lower than in the Northeast (76%), Midwest (77%), and West (73%) (P = 0.001). Respondents in the South also were the least likely group to report ever having tried to or having participated in a research study (51%) compared with respondents in the Northeast (60%), Midwest (57%), and West (69%; P < 0.001). After adjusting for age, sex, education, race/ethnicity, tobacco use, and alcohol use, the odds ratio for knowledge of and participation in clinical trials for the Northeast (1.36; 95% CI 1.07-1.72) and West (1.85; 95% CI 1.39-2.45) remained significant compared with the South. African American respondents in the South were the most likely population group to report not understanding research studies (15%) as a reason for not participating, compared with the Northeast (9%), Midwest (8%), and West (6%; P < 0.001).
Significant regional variations in knowledge of and participation in HIV clinical trials exist. Our results suggest that increasing awareness and understanding of research studies, particularly among African Americans in the South, may facilitate HIV clinical trial participation that is more representative of the HIV-infected population across the United States.
为确保临床研究结果具有广泛适用性,纳入能代表目标临床人群的异质性人群至关重要。早期研究发现,参与人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)临床试验存在地区差异,美国南部的参与率最低。美国南部新HIV诊断率最高,这凸显了深入了解临床试验参与差异的必要性。我们评估了研究参与的地区差异是否依然存在,并描述了促进或阻碍不同地区参与HIV临床试验的因素。
在国内47个艾滋病临床试验组临床研究站点接受HIV治疗的成年HIV感染者中开展了一项一次性、匿名、双语、自行填写的调查,目标是每个站点完成50份调查问卷。采用χ²检验评估东北地区、中西部地区、南部地区和西部地区在HIV临床试验知识和参与方面的差异。使用多变量逻辑回归估计地区对HIV临床试验知识和参与影响的比值比及95%置信区间(CI)。
在2263份完成的调查问卷中,2125份纳入本分析。南部地区报告知晓研究的受访者比例(66%)显著低于东北地区(76%)、中西部地区(77%)和西部地区(73%)(P = 0.001)。与东北地区(60%)、中西部地区(57%)和西部地区(69%)的受访者相比,南部地区的受访者也是报告曾尝试或参与过研究的可能性最小的群体(51%;P < 0.001)。在调整年龄、性别、教育程度、种族/族裔、烟草使用和酒精使用因素后,东北地区(比值比为1.36;95% CI为1.07 - 1.72)和西部地区(比值比为1.85;95% CI为1.39 - 2.45)参与临床试验的知识和参与率与南部地区相比仍具有显著差异。南部地区的非裔美国受访者报告因不理解研究而不参与的可能性是最可能的人群组(15%),相比之下,东北地区为9%,中西部地区为8%,西部地区为6%(P < 0.001)。
HIV临床试验知识和参与情况存在显著的地区差异。我们的结果表明,提高对研究的认识和理解,特别是在南部地区的非裔美国人中,可能有助于使HIV临床试验参与情况更能代表美国全体HIV感染者。