Assessing feasibility and utility of an implicit bias training program for addressing disparities in cancer clinical trial participation

• Published in: Journal of clinical oncology Vol. 40; no. 16_suppl; p. e18599
• Main Authors: Barrett, Nadine, Boehmer, Leigh, Schrag, Janelle, Benson, Al Bowen, Green, Sybil, Hamroun, Leila, Howson, Alexandra, Matin, Khalid, Oyer, Randall A., Pierce, Lori J., Jeames, Sanford Earl, Winkfield, Karen Marie, Yang, Eddy Shih-Hsin, Zwicker, Victoria, Bruinooge, Suanna Steeby, Hurley, Patricia A., Hanley Williams, Jen Hanley, Guerra, Carmen
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 01-06-2022
• ISSN: 0732-183X; 1527-7755
• DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.e18599

e18599
Background: Low participation of Black, Hispanic, Latinx and other underrepresented racial/ethnic groups in clinical research remains a problem across the U.S. Recent studies have highlighted that stereotypes, assumptions, and bias play a role in lack of diversity in cancer trial participation. To help address this, the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) piloted an implicit bias training program for clinical research teams. Methods: Adapted from the Duke University Just Ask™ program, the pilot program is comprised of eLearning modules which can be completed in about 60 minutes. Features include education on diversity, equity, and bias in clinical trial participation, case vignettes, and strategies to mitigate disparities. A call was issued to members of both organizations. After completing the training, all individual participants were asked to complete a retrospective pre/post survey to assess change in knowledge and attitude. Focus groups explored participants’ experience with the training. Another survey was administered 6 weeks later to assess sustainability of changes. Results: Research teams from 50 programs were selected for the pilot. 129 individuals consented, and 126 completed the training and evaluations (98% response rate). 48% of participants reported that they had completed training on implicit bias and/or related topics prior to the pilot. Increased levels of knowledge were reported across all key training concepts, with an average % increase from 19% to 45%. Similar increases were observed for strategies for addressing implicit bias, with an average % increase from 10% to 31%. At 6 weeks post-training, there was a slight decrease in knowledge across most items, from -1% to -8%. Most (92%) participants reported satisfaction with the course, and most (92%) indicated they would recommend it to a colleague and would recommend implementing it at their program. Suggestions to improve the course included streamlining content and providing additional tools and resources. Conclusions: Pilot findings support the feasibility and utility of the training, which can help cancer programs to address disparities in clinical research. Next steps include modifying the course based on participant feedback, disseminating the training and supplementary resources, and exploring options for assessing the impact on upstream outcomes such as diversity in trial participation.[Table: see text]