A Study of a Culturally and Contextually Situated Multimedia Approach to Recruit a Hard-to-Reach Spanish-Speaking Population for a Randomized Control Trial (RCT)
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2022
A Study of a Culturally and Contextually Situated Multimedia Approach to Recruit a Hard-to-Reach Spanish-Speaking Population for a Randomized Control Trial (RCT)
Study designs involving randomization can be difficult to communicate to participants, especially those with low literacy. The literature on strategies to explain research concepts is limited, especially for non-English speakers. We measured the effectiveness of a culturally and contextually situated multimedia approach to recruit a cohort of 60 female Mexican immigrants (FMI) to a randomized control trial (RCT) to reduce social isolation and depression. This strategy was designed to explain the concept of randomization, explain what participating in the research study entailed, and ensure informed consent. Potential participants viewed a presentation explaining the study and a video including animation with voice-over explaining the concept of randomization. We administered a pre/post survey. Respondents (N = 59) reported an increase in their understanding of randomization, intention to enroll, and attitude towards participating in research. We conclude that a culturally and contextually situated multimedia approach is an effective model when recruiting underrepresented populations with low literacy for RCTs.
BonevskiB.RandellM.PaulC.ChapmanK.TwymanL.BryantJ.BrozekI.HughesC. (2014). Reaching the hard-to-reach: A systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-42.
2.
Boutin-Foster, C., Scott, E., Melendez, J., Rodriguez, A., Ramos, R., Kanna, B., & Michelen, W. (2013). Ethical considerations for conducting health disparities research in community health centers: A social-ecological perspective. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12), 2179–2184. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301599.
3.
DresdenG. M.LevittM. A. (2001). Modifying a standard industry clinical trial consent form improves patient information retention as part of the informed consent process. Academic Emergency Medicine: Official Journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 8(3), 246–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb01300.x.
4.
HamelL. M.PennerL. A.AlbrechtT. L.HeathE.GwedeC. K.EgglyS. (2016). Barriers to clinical trial enrollment in racial and ethnic minority patients with cancer. Cancer Control: Journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center, 23(4), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/107327481602300404
5.
Jenkins, V., Leach, L., Fallowfield, L., Nicholls, K., & Newsham, A. (2002). Describing randomisation: Patients’ and the public’s preferences compared with clinicians’ practice. British Journal of Cancer, 87(8), 854–858. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600527.
6.
JepsonM.ElliottD.ConefreyC.WadeJ.RooshenasL.WilsonC.BeardD.BlazebyJ. M.BirtleA.HallidayA.SteinR.DonovanJ. L.BeardD.CarrA.CookJ.CooperC.DeanB.DonovanJ. L.GrayA., … StallardN. (2018). An observational study showed that explaining randomization using gambling-related metaphors and computer-agency descriptions impeded randomized clinical trial recruitment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 99, 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.018
7.
KayeD. K. (2020). Why “understanding” of research may not be necessary for ethical emergency research. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 15(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-020-00090-7.
8.
KraftS. A.ConstantineM.DavidM.PorterK. M.Soo-Jin LeeM. G.KassN. E.WilfondB. S.ChoM. K. (2016). A randomized study of multimedia informational aids for research on medical practices: Implications for informed consent. Clinical Trials, 14(1), 94–1022. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774516669352.
9.
KriegerJ. L.NeilJ. M.StrekalovaY. A.SargeM. A. (2017). Linguistic strategies for improving informed consent in clinical trials among low health literacy patients. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 109, djw233. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw233.
10.
KriegerJ. L.Palmer-WackerlyA.DaileyP. M.Krok-SchoenJ. L.SchoenbergN. E.PaskettE. D. (2015). Comprehension of randomization and uncertainty in cancer clinical trials decision-making among rural, Appalachian patients. Journal of Cancer Education: The Official Journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 30(4), 743–748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-015-0789-0.
11.
KriegerJ. L.ParrottR. L.NussbaumJ. F. (2010). Metaphor use and health literacy: A pilot study of strategies to explain randomization in cancer clinical trials. Journal of Health Communication, 16(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.529494.
12.
MeppelinkC. S.SmitE. G.DivianiN.Van WeertJ. C. M. (2016). Health literacy and online health information processing: Unraveling the underlying mechanisms. Journal of Health Communication, 21(sup2), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2016.1193920.
13.
NdebeleP.WassenaarD.MasiyeF.Munalula-NkanduE. (2014). Trial participants’ understanding of randomization, double-blinding, and placebo use in low literacy populations: Findings from a study conducted within a microbicide trial in Malawi. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(3), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264614540592.
14.
OccaA.MorganS. E. (2019). Animations about clinical trial participation for cancer patients and survivors. Journal of Health Communication, 24(10), 749–760. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2019.1668089.
15.
Page-ReevesJ.Murray-KrezanC.ReginoL.PerezJ.BleeckerM.PerezD.WagnerB.TigertS.BearerE. L.WillgingC. E. (2021). A randomized control trial to test a peer support group approach for reducing social isolation and depression among female Mexican immigrants. BMC Public Health, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09867-z.
16.
Page-ReevesJ.ReginoL.Murray-KrezanC.BleeckerM.ErhardtE.BurgeM.BearerE.MishraS. (2017). A comparative effectiveness study of two culturally competent models of diabetes self-management programming for Latinos from low-income households. BMC Endocrine Disorders, 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-017-0192-4.
17.
SantelF.BahI.KimK.LinJ.-A.McCrackenJ.TemeA. (2019). Assessing readability and comprehension of informed consent materials for medical device research: A survey of informed consents from FDA’s Center for devices and radiological health. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 85, 105831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2019.105831.
18.
ShedlinM. G.DecenaC. U.MangaduT.MartinezA. (2011). Research participant recruitment in Hispanic communities: Lessons learned. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 13(2), 352–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-009-9292-1.
19.
SkinnerJ. S.FairA. M.HolmanA. S.BoyerA. P.WilkinsC. H. (2019). The impact of an educational video on clinical trial enrollment and knowledge in ethnic minorities: A randomized control trial. Frontiers in Public Health, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00104.
20.
SonneS. C.AndrewsJ. O.GentilinS. M.OppenheimerS.ObeidJ.BradyK.WolfS.DavisR.MagruderK. (2013). Development and pilot testing of a video-assisted informed consent process. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 36(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2013.05.011.
21.
SoodA.PrasadK.ChhatwaniL.ShinozakiE.ChaS. S.LoehrerL. L.Wahner-RoedlerD. L. (2009). Patients’ attitudes and preferences about participation and recruitment strategies in clinical trials. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 84(3), 243–247. https://doi.org/10.4065/84.3.243
22.
Stoecklin-MaroisM. T.Hennessy-BurtT. E.SchenkerM. B. (2011). Engaging a hard-to-reach population in research: Sampling and recruitment of hired farm workers in the MICASA study. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 17(4), 291–302. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.39803.
23.
TrickettE. J. (2009). Multilevel community-based culturally situated interventions and community impact: An ecological perspective. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43(3–4), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9227-y.
24.
TrickettE. J.BeehlerS.DeutschC.GreenL. W.HaweP.McLeroyK.MillerR. L.RapkinB. D.SchensulJ. J.SchulzA. J.TrimbleJ. E. (2011). Advancing the science of community-level interventions. American Journal of Public Health, 101(8), 1410–1419. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2010.300113.
25.
TrickettE. J.SchensulJ. J. (2009). Summary comments: Multi-level community based culturally situated interventions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43(3–4), 377–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9237-9.
26.
Viruell-FuentesE. A. (2007). Beyond acculturation: Immigration, discrimination, and health research among Mexicans in the United States. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 65(7), 1524–1535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.010.
27.
WadeJ.DonovanJ. L.LaneJ. A.NealD. E.HamdyF. C. (2009). It’s not just what you say, it’s also how you say it: Opening the “black box” of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 68(11), 2018–2028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.023.
28.
Webb HooperM.MitchellC.MarshallV. J.CheathamC.AustinK.SandersK.KrishnamurthiS.GraftonL. L. (2019). Understanding multilevel factors related to urban community trust in healthcare and research. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183280.
WinterS. S.Page-ReevesJ. M.PageK. A.HaozousE.SolaresA.Nicole CordovaC.LarsonR. S. (2018). Inclusion of special populations in clinical research: Important considerations and guidelines. Journal of Clinical and Translational Research, 4(1), 56–69. http://doi.org/10.18053/jctres.04.201801.003.
