Implicit provider bias in cancer clinical trial enrollment: A scoping review
Beauchemin, M.; Verp, J.; Laforet, P.; Solomon, S.; Walker, D.; Hershman, D. L.; Bentlyewski, E.; Liang, N.-C.; Hillyer, G. C.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe lack of racial and ethnic representation in cancer clinical trials further exacerbates existing health disparities and has been linked to inequitable and unequal distribution of resources, social determinants of health, racism, and most recently, provider implicit bias. The purpose of this scoping review is to describe the evidence of implicit bias as it relates to cancer clinical trial enrollment. MethodsSystematic methods were followed to search online databases for publications that assessed provider bias and cancer clinical trial offers through August 1, 2023. Variables of interest included how implicit bias was defined or measured, what type of bias was examined, and if provider implicit bias was identified or described in the cancer clinical trial enrollment process. ResultsWe identified 10 publications that met the inclusion criteria. Nine of ten studies were conducted in the United States, and all studies utilized observational or qualitative study design. Most assessed the provider perspective, and one study used a validated measure to identify implicit bias. Some studies identified evidence of implicit provider bias in clinical trial discussions and offers; however, it was observed in situations where system constraints, such as lack of resources or time were present that may be common in oncological settings. ConclusionsMultilevel support and dedication to improving racial, ethnic, and other patient-level representativeness are required to mitigate the influence of implicit bias in resource-poor and stressful clinical settings to ensure equitable access to and enrollment in clinical trials for all patients with cancer. RegistrationThe protocol for this scoping review was registered to Open Science Framework (1), https://osf.io/a6kbt/?view_only=0a857280364a49b9b3f8363b91b00994.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The devil is in the details: Reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopedic clinical trials 93%
- Addressing the Needs and Identifying Supports for Parents of Chronically Ill Adolescents and Young Adults in their Shared Transition from Pediatric to Adult Care: A Scoping Review Protocol 93%
- Surgical Resection, Radiotherapy, And Percutaneous Thermal Ablation for Treatment of Stage 1 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Landscape of Clinical Trials in Cancer Cachexia: Assessment of Trends From 1995-2024 93%
- Risk-Reducing Salpingectomy: Considerations from an OBGYN Perspective 92%
- Assessing awareness of blood cancer symptoms and barriers to symptomatic presentation: Measure development and results from a population survey in the UK 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Scientific hypothesis generation process in clinical research: a secondary data analytic tool versus experience study protocol 92%
- Ensuring a successful transition from Pap to HPV-based primary screening in Canada: a study protocol to investigate the psychosocial correlates of women’s screening intentions 92%
- The Womens Wellness After Giving Birth Program (WWAGBP) for Vietnamese women: A single-arm trial protocol 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Healthcare Consumers’ Perceptions of Incentive-Linked Prescribing: A Scoping Review of Research 92%
- Perceptions of barriers and facilitators for cervical cancer screening from women and healthcare workers in Ghana: Applying the Dynamic Sustainability Framework 92%
- Comparing in-person, blended and virtual training interventions; a real-world evaluation of HIV capacity building programs in 16 countries in sub-Saharan Africa 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.