Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Barriers to Clinical Trial Participation: A Comparison of Rural and Urban Communities in South Carolina

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Community Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Analyzing data from a telephone survey of rural and urban residents in South Carolina, this study attempts to understand how to better promote clinical trials (CTs) in rural areas. To explore why participation is lower among the rural population, we examine two groups of potential barriers: structural and procedural barriers (limited accessibility, lack of awareness, lack of health insurance) and cognitive and psychological barriers (lack of knowledge, misperceptions, distrust, fear). We then make a series of comparisons between rural and urban residents to see whether rural residents are significantly different from urban residents in terms of structural/procedural and cognitive/psychological barriers they are facing. Findings indicate that there are no significant differences between rural and urban residents in their willingness to participate in a CT. However, rural residents were more likely to perceive limited access to CT sites and lack of awareness of available trials. Rural residents also indicated greater lack of knowledge about CTs. Finally, we found that distrust and fear were important barriers in shaping one’s willingness to participate in a CT. Implications of the findings are discussed in detail.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). 2010 Census urban and rural classification and urban area criteria. Retrieved 15 December 2012, from http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html.

  2. South Carolina Rural Health Research Center. (2008). State rural plan for South Carolina. Retrieved 13 September 2012, from http://www.ruralcenter.org/sites/default/files/webform/Compiled%20SC%20Rural%20Health%20Plan%20082508version.pdf.

  3. University of Pittsburgh Center for Rural Health Practice. (2004). Bridging the health divide, the rural public health research agenda. Retrieved 18 October 2010, from http://www.pitt.edu.

  4. Cohen, G. I. (2003). Clinical research by community oncologists. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 53(2), 73–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Maurer, L. H., Davis, T., Hammond, S., Smith, E., West, P., & Doolittle, M. (2001). Clinical trials in a rural population: Professional education aspects. Journal of Cancer Education, 16(2), 89–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shavers, V. L., Lynch, C. F., & Burmeister, L. F. (2002). Racial differences in factors that influence the willingness to participate in medical research studies. Annals of Epidemiology, 12(4), 248–256.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tanner, A., Kim, S.-H., Friedman, D. B., Foster, C., & Bergeron, C. D. (in press). Barriers to medical research participation as perceived by clinical trial investigators: Communicating with rural and African American communities. Journal of Health Communication.

  8. Giuliano, A. R., Mokuau, N., Hughes, C., et al. (2000). Participation of minorities in cancer research: The influence of structural, cultural, and linguistic factors. Annals of Epidemiology, 10(8), S22–S34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jones, J. M., Nyhof-Young, J., Moric, J., Friedman, A., Wells, W., & Catton, P. (2006). Identifying motivations and barriers to patient participation in clinical trials. Journal of Cancer Education, 21(4), 237–242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lara, P. N, Jr, Higdon, R., Lim, N., et al. (2001). Prospective evaluation of cancer clinical trial accrual patterns: Identifying potential barriers to enrollment. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19(6), 1728–1733.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Du, W., Mood, D., Gadgeel, S., & Simon, M. S. (2008). An educational video to increase clinical trials enrollment among lung cancer patients. Journal of Thoracic Oncology, 3(1), 23–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Baquet, C. R., Commiskey, P., Mullins, D., & Mishra, S. I. (2006). Recruitment and participation in clinical trials: Socio-demographic, rural/urban, and health care access predictors. Cancer Detection and Prevention, 30(1), 24–33.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Comis, R. L., Miller, J. D., Aldigé, C. R., Krebs, L., & Stoval, E. (2003). Public attitudes toward participation in cancer clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21(5), 830–835.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Advani, A. S., Atkeson, B., Brown, C. L., et al. (2003). Barriers to the participation of African-American patients with cancer in clinical trials: A pilot study. Cancer, 97(6), 1499–1506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Association of Clinical Research Professionals (ACRP). (2009). Center watch 2008 national survey of study volunteer experiences. Paper presented at the ACRP global conference and exhibition.

  16. Getz, K. A. (2008). Restoring public confidence in clinical research: Lessons from the organ donation sector. The Monitor, 2008, 59–62.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Frank, G. (2004). Current challenges in clinical trial patient recruitment and enrollment. SoCRA Source, 2(February), 30–38.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Stiller, C. (1994). Centralized treatment, entry to trials, and survival. British Journal of Cancer, 70(2), 352–362.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Friedman, D. B., Bergeron, C. D., Foster, C., Tanner, A., & Kim, S. H. (2013). What do people really know and think about clinical trials? A comparison of rural and urban communities in the South. Journal of Community Health, 38(4), 642–651.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Quinn, G. P., Bell, B. A., Bell, M. Y., et al. (2007). The guinea pig syndrome: Improving clinical trial participation among thoracic patients. Journal of Thoracic Oncology, 2(3), 191–196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sateren, W. B., Trimble, E. L., Abrams, J., et al. (2002). How sociodemographics, presence of oncology specialists, and hospital cancer programs affect accrual to cancer treatment trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 20(8), 2109–2117.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kelch, R. P. (2002). Maintaining the public trust in clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 346(4), 285–287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brown, D. R., Fouad, M. N., Basen-Engquist, K., & Tortolero-Luna, G. (2000). Recruitment and retention of minority women in cancer screening, prevention, and treatment trials. Annals of Epidemiology, 10(8), S13–S21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shavers-Hornaday, V. L., Lynch, C. F., Burmeister, L. F., & Torner, J. C. (1997). Why are African Americans under-represented in medical research studies? Impediments to participation. Ethnicity and Health, 2(1/2), 31–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chan, L., Hart, G., & Goodman, D. C. (2006). Geographic access to health care for rural Medicare beneficiaries. Journal of Rural Health, 22(2), 140–146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Miller, J. D. (1987). Scientific literacy in the United States. In D. Evered & M. O’Connor (Eds.), Communicating science to the public (pp. 19–40). London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Miller, J. D., Pardo, R., & Niwa, F. (1997). Public perceptions of science and technology: A comparative study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. Madrid: BBV Foundation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2000). Standards for defining metropolitan and metropolitan statistical areas. Retrieved 18 October 2010 from http://www.census.gov/population/metro/files/00-32997.pdf.

  29. American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2011). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (7th ed.). Deerfield, IL: AAPOR.

  30. Lee, C.-J., & Scheufele, D. A. (2006). The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(4), 819–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ho, S. S., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2011). Factors influencing public risk-benefit considerations of nanotechnology: Assessing the effects of mass media, interpersonal communication, and elaborative processing. Public Understanding of Science, 22(5), 606–623.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded through a grant from Health Sciences South Carolina.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Journalism and Mass Communications, University of South Carolina, Carolina Coliseum, 600 Assembly Street, Columbia, SC, 29201, USA

    Sei-Hill Kim & Andrea Tanner

  2. Department of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

    Daniela B. Friedman & Caroline D. Bergeron

  3. Statewide Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

    Daniela B. Friedman

  4. Department of Communication, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC, USA

    Caroline Foster

Authors
  1. Sei-Hill Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Tanner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniela B. Friedman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Caroline Foster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Caroline D. Bergeron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sei-Hill Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, SH., Tanner, A., Friedman, D.B. et al. Barriers to Clinical Trial Participation: A Comparison of Rural and Urban Communities in South Carolina. J Community Health 39, 562–571 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-013-9798-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-013-9798-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation