Date post: | 15-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | kerry-patrick |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Engaging Communities of Color in Aging Research
Giselle Corbie-Smith, MDUniversity of North Carolina –Chapel Hill
Program on Health DisparitiesSheps Center for Health Services Research
NC Translational and Clinical Science Institute
Overview
• How did we get to mandated inclusion?
• Are older minorities underrepresented in research?
• Influences on participation of older minorities
• Role of community engagement
How Did We Arrive at Mandated Inclusion?
• Public reports of ethical misconduct raised concerns about vulnerability in research– Nuremberg Trials– Willowbrook Study– Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital – US Public Health Study at Tuskegee
• Belmont Report reinforced the need to protect groups considered vulnerable by physical, mental or social and economic circumstances
How Did We Arrive at Mandated Inclusion?
• Little public pressure to enter clinical research due to perception of high risk and low benefit
• HIV/AIDS became a pivotal event in research participation– Research seen as offering best and least costly
hope to victims – AIDS victims campaigned to gain admission to
clinical studies
• Shift in clinical research being considered a risky burden to a prized benefit from which no one should excluded
Why Worry About Minority Inclusion in Clinical Research
• 1993 NIH Revitalization Act– Participation of racial and ethnic minorities in
clinical trials is critical for understanding and eliminating racial and ethnic health disparities
• to better understand disparities in health • to improve the generalizability of research findings
– Clinical research drives advances in medical care
– “You gotta be in it to win it”
Minority Enrollment for NIH Extramural Phase III Research Protocols
(Reported in FY 2003)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Amer.Indian/
AlaskanNative
Asian Black Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
White More thanone race
Unknown/Other
UnknownMaleFemale
Dept. of Health and Human Services, (2004). Comprehensive Report: Tracking of Human Subjects Research Reported in FY 2002 and FY 2003.Dept. of Health and Human Services, (2004). Comprehensive Report: Tracking of Human Subjects Research Reported in FY 2002 and FY 2003.
# of protocols = 5153
n = 9,378,140
# of protocols = 5153
n = 9,378,140
Per
cen
tag
eP
erce
nta
ge
Enrollment of nonwhites in heart failure Enrollment of nonwhites in heart failure randomized controlled trials randomized controlled trials
Heiat A, Gross CP, Krumholz HM. Arch Intern Med. 2002; 162(15):1684.
Barriers to Accrual
• Barriers to awareness– Lack of education about trials– Lack of dissemination of study
opportunities to patients/providers
– Lack of knowledge about the origins of cancer
• Barriers to opportunity– Cost– Functional status– Study’s duration and visit
structure– Time commitment– Lack of or inadequate health
insurance– Lack of transportation– Provider attitudes
• Barriers to acceptance– Perceived harms of clinical trial
participation– Mistrust of research,
researchers, and the medical system
– Fear– Family considerations
Ford, Howerton, Bolen, et al. AHRQ Evidence Report. 2005Ford, Howerton, Bolen, et al. AHRQ Evidence Report. 2005
Promoters of accrual
• Promoters of awareness– Education programs for community physicians– Adequate knowledge about study– Workshop on trials
• Promoters of opportunity– Culturally relevant education about trials– Providing transportation
• Promoters of acceptance– Altruism– Perceived benefits of trial participation– Incentives
Ford, Howerton, Bolen, et al. AHRQ Evidence Report. 2005Ford, Howerton, Bolen, et al. AHRQ Evidence Report. 2005
Distrust and African Americans
• Thought to stem from the history of racial discrimination and exploitation – US Public Health Service Syphilis Study at
Tuskegee– Experiences extending back to slavery– Medical and surgical experimentation on slaves– Robbery of Black graves for cadavers in medical
education– Current fear of hospitalization
African Americans and Distrust
• Distrust exists among both Blacks and Whites• African Americans more likely to believe
– doctors would ask them to participate in harmful research or expose them to unnecessary risks
– doctors would not explain research or would treat them as part of an experiment without their consent
• African Americans had 5 times odds of having highest distrust scores
• Differences persisted after controlling for markers of socioeconomic status
• Still need to explore the contributions of interpersonal and societal trust
• Demonstrating our trustworthiness one important step in improving minority participation
Corbie-Smith et al, Archives of Internal Medicine, Nov 2002Corbie-Smith et al, Archives of Internal Medicine, Nov 2002
Social and Health Priorities of Older African Americans and
Latinos• Focus group with older Latinos and African Americans,
and survey of community-based organizations serving older African Americans or Latinos– Affordable housing, enough money to meet their needs, adequate
transportation, and safer neighborhoods were urgent priorities for older Latinos and African Americans and superseded their health concerns
– Distrust of researchers, lack of information, caregiver obligations, fear of experimentation, and lack of benefits were identified as barriers to research participation
• Willing to participate if fully informed, perceive tangible benefits and congruence between the objectives of researchers and participants
Nápoles-Springer et al. Research on Aging 2000; 22; 668
Consumer Centered Models in Mental Health Research in Older Minorities
• Consult with community opinion leaders, gatekeepers, and representative consumers when designing their research
– focus groups and advisory boards made up of members from the target community
– improves research groups’ ability to understand community-specific recruitment/retention
– collaboratively develop methods for overcoming• Include staff members who are ethnically similar to, have experience
working with, or are members of the target population– may also be more sensitive to participants’ reactionsand can provide
feedback • Method of anticipating respondent burden to minimize attrition• Provide feedback to the target community
Arean, The Gerontologist, 2003
Success in longitudinal studies of aging
• Use of a culturally grounded approach to recruitment and retention
• Assign the same interviewers to communicate with and interview study participants for each wave of data collection.
• Ensure that all interviewers are knowledgeable of cultural values and norms, possible family dynamics, and social issues within the African American community.
• Provide a mechanism by way of the toll-free number for all study participants to contact the project staff at their convenience.
• Allow flexibility in scheduling and/or rescheduling interviews at the participant’s convenience.
Dilworth-Anderson and Williams, J Aging Health 2004; 16; 137S
Surface Structure vs. Deep Structure Recruitment Strategies
Surface Structure• PSAs on minority radio
stations
• PSAs on television
• Advertisements in minority newspapers
Deep Structure• Radio interview with a credible
host in the target market, coupled with traditional PSAs
• Station viewed by the target market, particular hours, and use of cable channels
• Include a story written about the study and investigators in credible print media, coupled with ads
Resnicow et al, Ethn Dis. 1999 Winter;9(1):10-21 Resnicow et al, Ethn Dis. 1999 Winter;9(1):10-21
Suggestions for Effective Recruitment and Retention
• “Stop by when you don’t want something”• Community involvement in research
infrastructure• Use appropriate channels of communication• Demonstrate an appreciation for barriers • Offer an incentive that is meaningful to
participants• Provide feedback and disseminate findings• “Ask” people to participate
What Happens When You Ask?
• Widely claimed that minority groups are less willing than non-Hispanic whites to participate in health research
• Examined 20 health research studies • Small differences by race/ethnicity in
willingness to participate – non-intervention studies: African Americans had
slightly lower consent rates; Clinical and surgical interventions: slightly higher consent rates than non-Hispanic whites
Wendler et al. PLoS Med.2006Wendler et al. PLoS Med.2006
“If you're targeting minority groups, you have a lot of community issues that you've got to work through…buy in from churches, local, opinion leaders… I think you've got a lot more foot work to do and discussions to occur so that the community is fully aware of what the project is about because misperceptions can really destroy a study. Even if the study is done, everything is perfect, the IRB completely agrees and it's been reviewed. The study can be destroyed by misperception.”
Investigator, stroke clinical trials in minority communities
Role of Community Involvement
Why Involve Communities?
• Investigators bring technical knowledge about topic and expertise in research methodology
• Community members bring in depth knowledge of community concerns, needs, values, and priorities – Providing the framework for study questions, – Identifying ethical concerns about the project, – Suggesting how to modify the study to increase acceptance of the
research in the community, – Assuring that data collection instruments are culturally appropriate, – Promoting enrollment and retention in the study.
• Input from community members can be important for understanding risks research poses and identifying most acceptable methods of ameliorating them
• Enhances ability of community groups to use research results in advocating for social change
Examining Ethical Principles
• Due to social, historical and economic contexts, ethical principles need to be examined in underserved communities – Respect for persons: Informed consent may need to be
examined if participants are vulnerable in many ways and live in communities that lack economic and political power
– Beneficence: Participants and community representatives may have a markedly different assessment of benefits and risks of research than researchers or IRBs
– Justice: Often focuses on equitable selection of subjects; in communities where there may be multiple vulnerabilities additional issues of power, responsibility, trust, context, and history must be considered
Approaches to Community Involvement
• Range of involvement from none to passive to active to partner/collaborators – Investigators consult with individuals “at the periphery of
community cultural systems” – Investigators consult with influential community members for
endorsement and support, but not advice or guidance– Investigators consult with influential community members for
support, advice, and guidance, usually through an advisory board– Investigators partner with the community to define problem,
identify potential solutions, and conduct research -- community as collaborator -- negotiating goals and conduct of study and analysis and use of findings
• Potential for manipulation especially when involvement is limited and decision-making power of community members is absent
“If I do all of this and it benefits society… given the way brothers are
treated [in this country] how is it
going to help me?”
Perceptions of Research Participation
• Doubt and distrust about research participation
• Not sure if research participation will lead to improved health for them or their community
• Aware of the disparities in health and access to care
• Experiences in clinical care inform their expectation of research participation
How Can Investigators Ensure That Participation in Research Translates
Into Tangible Benefits for Minority Communities?
Rethinking Benefit
• Expected outcome of participation is benefit
• Potential direct benefits of receiving a particular intervention in a clinical study
• Collateral benefits of study participation such as free medical care
• Societal benefits that accrues to others in greater society
King NMP. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2000
“Societal Benefit” and Minority
Communities • Disparities in health are in part determined by social
and environmental inequities• Consider ways to affect socioeconomic factors
– Build capacity among community leaders – Creating opportunities for employment and training – Building and supporting infrastructure – Provide the results of study findings
• Take cues from international efforts – HIV/AIDS trials– NBAC guidelines on conducting trials in resource poor
countries– Other nations as examples: New Zealand and Maori
Corbie-Smith, et al, Archives of Internal Medicine, 2004
“Societal Benefit” and Minority Communities
• Need a deliberate multidimensional approach – Opportunity to demonstrate our
trustworthiness– Close the circle between inclusion of
minorities in clinical research and disparate health outcomes
– So that research participation is not another example of inequities so evident in this country
Types of Engagement
• Investigator Initiated Community Based Research
• Research Collaborations– One on one– Multiple organizations
• Community Advisory Boards• Community Based Participatory
Research
Why CBPR?• Complex health and social problems ill-
suited to “outside expert” research• Increasing community and funder demands
for community-driven research• Disappointing results in intervention
research• Increasing understanding of importance of
local and cultural context• Increasing interest in use of research to
improve best practices/best processSource: hsc.unm.edu/som/fcm/cpr/docs/CBPR_Intro.ppt
Definition of CBPR
“CBPR is a collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the community with the aim of combining knowledge and action for social change to improve community health and eliminate health disparities.”
W.K. Kellogg Community Scholar’s Program (2001)
What is and is not CBPR?
• CBPR is an orientation to research– a collaborative approach that changes the role
of researcher and researched
• CBPR is an applied approach– Goal is to influence change in community
health, systems, programs, or policies
• CBPR is not a method or set of methods
Source: See hsc.unm.edu/som/fcm/cpr/docs/CBPR_Intro.ppt
Perspectives on CBPR… extremes of a continuum
Community: Research as imposing on or using
vs. benefiting or involving the
community
Academia: Community participation as largely
incompatible with rigorous research
Health Concerns Identified
Study Designed and Funding Sought
Participants recruited and retention systems implemented
Measurement instruments designed and data collected
Intervention designed and implemented
Data analyzed and interpreted
Translation of findings
C. helps identify key issues
Incr. motivation to participate
Traditional Research Approach
C. helps with study design, budget, proposal submission
Incr. acceptability and “buy-in”
Issues selected from Epid. data
Design: science and feasibility
Budget: research expenses
Community-Based Participatory Research
C. gives guidance re recruitment and retention
Enhanced recruitment and retention
C. helps with measures development and testing
Increased reliability and validity
C. helps guide intervention development
Greater relevance and likelihood for success
C. helps with data interpretation and publications
Enhanced potential for translation and dissemination
Researchers report findings from analysis and publish in peer review journals
Intervention designed by researchers based on literature and theory
Measures adopted or adapted from other studies, psychometric testing
Recruitment and Retention based on science and “best guesses”
Principles of CBPR
• Acknowledges community as a unit of identity
• Builds on strengths and resources within the community
• Facilitates a collaborative, equitable partnership in all phases of research, involving an empowering and power-sharing process that attends to social inequalities
Principles of CBPR
• Fosters co-learning and capacity building among all partners
• Seeks balance between knowledge generation and intervention (research and action)
• Focuses on the local relevance of public health problems and pays attention to the multiple determinants of health
Principles of CBPR
• Involves a cyclical and iterative process• Disseminates results to all partners and
involves them in the wider dissemination of results
• Involves a long-term process, relationship and commitment to sustainability
Source: Israel, Eng, Schulz, and Parker 2005
CBPR Tools and Approaches
• Focus groups
• Interviews
• Windshield Tours
• Community Capacity Inventory
• Community Asset Maps
• Risk Mapping
• Community Dialogues
• Photovoice Source: Minkler and Wallerstein, 2008
Project GRACE: Building and sustaining effective CBPR partnerships to address
HIV disparities
Giselle Corbie-Smith, Principal Investigator
How Project GRACE Started
• NIH Request for Application– National Center for Minority Health and
Health Disparities (NCMHD)– Community-Based Participatory Research
(CBPR)– Goal to reduce/eliminate health disparities– 3 year needs assessment– Pilot intervention
Planned Approach to Partnership Development• Stage 1: Initial mobilization
• Stage 2: Establishment of organizational structure
• Stage 3: Capacity building for action
• Stage 4: Planning for action
Source: Florin P, Mitchell R, Stevenson J. Identifying training and technical assistance needs in community coalitions: a developmental approach. Health Educ Res 1993;8(3):417-32.
Stage 1: Initial Mobilization— Writing the Grant
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill invites the community to the table at the outset
• Community-based organization (CBO) liaison
• Assembled a group of CBOs to provide input
• Components developed by working committees
• Presentation to the larger community
Who is at the Table?
• The “Community”
– Subcontractors
– Agency/CBO Representation
– Grassroots Representation
– Individual Representation
Stage 2: Establish Organizational Structure
Project GRACE Consortium
Comprised of **51** organizations and **43** individuals
Membership & By-Laws Sub-Committee
Events Planning Sub-Committee
Research Design Sub-Committee
Fiscal/ Budget Sub-Committee
Nominations Sub-Committee
Communications & Publications Sub-Committee
Steering CommitteeArea L AHEC (Comm Outreach Spec) Nash Co. Health Dept.Better Days Ahead Nash Health Care SystemsCEO (Youth LHA Supv) New Sources, Inc. (Parent LHA Supv)Citizens of Edgecombe Co. Project Momentum, Inc. (COC)East Tarboro-Princeville CDC Rocky Mount OIC (Interviewer Supv)Edgecombe Co. Health Dept. Sozo MinistriesFreedom Hill Community Health Center Visions, Inc. (Process Consultants)Heritage Hospital Wright Center, Inc.NAACP, Edgecombe County UNC-Chapel Hill (Project Coordinator, PI)
The Consortium
Mission To improve the health of minority and/or high-risk populations by establishing collaborative structures and processes that respond to, empower, and facilitate communities in defining and solving their own problems.
Includes volunteers from many fields, including:-HIV/STI prevention and/or care services -Recreation -Edgecombe County and City Government -Private Business -Health Care Services -Mental Health Services & Support -Education & Educational Support for Youth -Character and Life Skills Training -Daycare Services -Employment assistance -Housing Assistance -Religious/Spiritual Support -Legislative Representation -Education & Educational Support for Young Adults and Adults -Local History/Genealogy for African Americans
Stage 3: Capacity Building for Action• Initial and ongoing
multicultural “isms” training
• Process consultants at each community meeting
• Annual process evaluation
• Coalition building sessions
• Periodic retreats to address concerns, progress and strategic planning
Stage 4: Planning for Action
• Identify community needs and assets to plan intervention
• 11 focus groups conducted• 37 stakeholder interviews• Intervention mapping to
plan intervention• Pre-test curriculum pieces• Pilot test intervention
Lessons Learned
• Planned approach has resulted in effective engagement of community members
– Consortium membership increased from 15 to 57
– Representation from 51+ community agencies and 43 individuals
– 82% of steering committee reside or work in the two counties
– Community members chair 5 of the 6 working committees
– Over 100 people attended community forums
• Need for flexibility in by-laws, organizational structure and processes
• Paying close attention to organizational structure, developing by-laws and focusing on process have been crucial
Summary
• Multiple factors influence participation in research
• Effective strategies are – Multidimensional – Engage target populations – Address community concerns and expectations
NC TraCS and Community Engagement in Translational
Research
Giselle Corbie-Smith, MD, MSc
Deputy Director, NC TraCS InstituteDirector, Community Engagement CoreDirector, Program on Health Disparities
Sheps Center
www.tracs.unc.edu(866) 705-4931
Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA)
A national consortium of medical research institutions, working together and sharing a common vision to: • Improve the way biomedical research is conducted
across the country • Reduce the time it takes for laboratory discoveries to
become treatments for patients • Engage communities in clinical research efforts
• Train the next generation of clinical and translational
researchers
CTSA Network 2009
To date, 46 institutions have received CTSA funding, the total is expected to reach 60 by 2010
NC Translational and Clinical Sciences (TraCS) Institute
• Our mission:– transform all activities relating to clinical and
translational research – create new programs and pathways that make it easier
for research to be performed at UNC and throughout the State of North Carolina.
NC TraCS Community Engagement Core
focused on conducting T2 research and ensuring community input and outreach:
•Increased acceptance of and adherence to effective medical interventions
•Improved recruitment and retention
•Dissemination of culturally appropriate health-related information
Community Engagement Core (CEC)Giselle Corbie-Smith, MD, MSc - Director
CEC Purpose:
Create permanent research structures Regional TraCS campuses-local community boards, single connection portal and core resources with stable research staff so that population research dictated by community needs can proceed rapidly and successfully.
Guiding Principles:
Two-way Exchange Bi-directional between university and community
Participatory Approaches Co-learning , shared decision making, mutual ownership of products and processes
Education and Training Specific capacity building for all partners – community, investigators and health care providers
Regional TraCS Campus (RTC)
Clinical Coordinator
Community Based
Organizations
Community Research Network
Clinical Research Network
CommunityOutreachSpecialist
Healthy Carolinians
Local Community
Advisory Board
Community Practices
Practice Based Research Network
University Researchers
Regional TraCS Campuses
57
The CEC provides consultation on a range of services, including:
Connection Portal• Identify potential community and university partners for collaboration• Map service areas of research efforts
Education and Training• Training – community and clinical audiences• Identify potential community and university partners for collaboration• Technical assistance at community level for pilot application process
Regional TraCS Campuses • Local research staff• Identification of meeting space• Dissemination of study results• Assistance with study implementation/data collection (i.e. interviewing, focus
groups, screening potential study participants, survey administration, etc.)• Coordination of community meetings• Identification of community-based organizations• Identification of clinical practices• Data entry• Report summaries
NC TraCS Services
Providing the infrastructure to increase the safety, speed, and rigor of patient-oriented research:
TraCS Research Inquiry Desk
Research Navigators
IND/IDE Specialists
Research Subject Advocates
Recruitment Specialists
Strategic Opportunities
Data Management
Biostatistics
Ethics/Regulatory
Bioinformatics
Career Development Resources
Education
Consultation Services
Clinical Trials Resources
Core Facilities
Dissemination
Grant & IRB Assistance
60
NC NC TraCS Pilot Grant Program Pilot Grant Program• TraC$2K
TraCS offers up to $2,000 grants to assist researchers implement a proposed study, or move a research project forward by providing rapid access to funds that will support almost any aspect of promising and innovative research.
• TraC$10K
TraCS offers up to $10,000 grants to support researchers with the early development of a research idea, or to expand an existing study beyond the original scope into promising new directions.
• Large Pilot Program
The TraCS Large Pilot Grant serves as a stimulus for new research initiatives aimed at obtaining sufficient preliminary data to allow new applications for extramural funding.
Each of these pilot programs will be offered multiple times within the first year of the CTSA. For specific program guidelines and application due dates, please visit our website www.tracs.unc.edu
Additional CBPR Resources
• CBPR Curriculum– http://www.cbprcurriculum.info/
• CBPR Toolkits– http://www.shepscenter.unc.edu/research_programs/aging/publications/CEAL-U
NC%20Manual%20for%20Community-Based%20Participatory%20Research-1.pdf
• Books– Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ, Parker EA. (Eds.) (2005). Methods in Community-
Based Participatory Research for Health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.– Minkler, M, Wallerstein, E. (Eds.) (2008) Community-Based Participatory
Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
• NIH Summer Institute on CBPR– http://conferences.thehillgroup.com/si2009/agenda.html
How Can We Move the Field Forward
• Don’t assume that others (or you) know what you mean by race– Explicit definitions of race
• More careful in invoking either biological or social constructions of race
• Statement on the theory that might explain differences in health outcomes
Hutchins LF, Unger JM, Crowley JJ et al. N Engl J Med 1999;341:2061-7.).
Proportion of Blacks Enrolled in Trials of the Southwest Oncology Proportion of Blacks Enrolled in Trials of the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) as Compared with the Proportion of Blacks in the U.S. Group (SWOG) as Compared with the Proportion of Blacks in the U.S. Population of Patients with Cancer, According to the Type of CancerPopulation of Patients with Cancer, According to the Type of Cancer