Utilizing a patient advocacy-led clinical network to engage diverse, community-based sites in implementation-effectiveness research

Abstract

Abstract Background Increased engagement with community-based practices is a promising strategy for increasing clinical trials access of diverse patient populations. In this study we assessed the ability to utilize a patient-advocacy organization led clinical network to engage diverse practices as field sites for clinical research. Methods GO2 for Lung Cancer led recruitment efforts of 17 field sites from their Centers of Excellence in Lung Cancer Screening Network for participation in an implementation-effectiveness trial focused on smoking cessation integration into screening programs for lung cancer. Sites were engaged by one of three methods: 1) Pre-Grant submission of letters of support, 2) a non-targeted study information dissemination campaign to network members, and 3) proactive, targeted outreach to specific centers informed by previously submitted network member data. Detailed self-reported information on barriers to participation was collected from centers that declined to join the study. Results Of 17 total field sites, 16 were recruited via the targeted outreach campaign and 1 via pre-grant letter of support submission. The sites covered 13 states and 4 United States geographic regions, were varied in annual screening volumes and years of screening program experience and were predominantly community-based practices (10 of 17 sites). The most reported reason (by 33% of sites) for declining to participate as a field site was inadequate staffing bandwidth for trial activities. This was especially true in community-based programs among which it was reported by 45% as a reason for declining. Conclusions Our results suggest that this model of field site recruitment leveraging an existing partnership between an academic research team and an informal clinical network maintained by a disease-specific patient advocacy organization can result in engagement of diverse, community-based field sites. Additionally, reported barriers to participation by sites indicate that solutions centered around providing additional resources to enable greater capacity for site staff may increase community-practice participation in research.

Keywords

• Clinical trials
• Field sites
• Cancer