Minorities In Clinical Trials Research Articles

Closing the divide: Diverse populations and cancer survivorship

Currently, there is a "divide" between cancer survivorship initiatives and minority participation. The level of participation is nearly nonexistent in many cancer support and control initiatives. Cancer survivorship resources that facilitate access to treatment, psychosocial interventions, clinical trials, and research are key components to eliminating this divide. Differences in cancer results among minority populations are caused by several factors, including biologic reactions to environmental activities, socioeconomic status, perceived beliefs and notions of medical professionals, a lack of resources to participate in cancer support groups, and having personal contact with cancer survivors. Health professionals, advocates, and researchers hold the key to opening more opportunities for the improvement of cancer survivorship among minorities. The belief that "one size fits all" is unrealistic. These beliefs can influence participation in innovative clinical trials, decisions about treatment, emotional responses, and social support relationships. To help ensure participation in these programs, researchers and health workers must understand the role of social and psychosocial implications and results of the assessment, strategies, and sustainability that must be included in the development stage of any cancer support and survivorship initiatives. For this article, the authors examined mechanisms that can be used by cancer-control researchers and program staff to limit the divide between cancer survivorship initiatives and minority participation. They identified three strategies that must be used to address this divide effectively: the inclusion of minorities in clinical trials, intervention studies, treatment, and research programs; the development of culturally sensitive environments; and the ability to sustain minority participation. In summary, cancer survivorship includes many components that are developed individually and collectively to formulate sound strategies for including minorities in cancer-control initiatives. These programs should go beyond basic support groups and should include research studies, clinical trials, and alternative treatments for increasing cancer survival rates and quality of life among minorities. The divide can be addressed only through a proactive initiative that brings cancer survivorship initiatives and minority communities together in full partnership.

Psychosocial Treatment Research With Ethnic Minority Populations: Ethical Considerations in Conducting Clinical Trials

Because of historical mistreatment of ethnic minorities by research and medical institutions, it is particularly important for researchers to be mindful of ethical issues that arise when conducting research with ethnic minority populations. In this article, we focus on the ethical issues related to the inclusion of ethnic minorities in clinical trials of psychosocial treatments. We highlight 2 factors, skepticism and mistrust by ethnic minorities about research and current inequities in the mental health care system, that researchers should consider when developing psychosocial interventions studies that include ethnic minorities.

Use of beta-blockers in obesity hypertension: potential role of weight gain.

Beta-blockers are the most frequently used drugs for the treatment of hypertension. Apart from concerns regarding potential adverse metabolic effects on lipids or insulin sensitivity, beta-blockers can also cause weight gain in some patients. This fact appears little known to clinical practitioners and trialists. Thus, only a minority of clinical trials with beta-blockers report weight changes during treatment. In trials that do report weight changes, beta-blockers are associated with a weight gain of 1.2 (range -0.4-3.5) kg. This may be attributable to the fact that beta blockade can decrease metabolic rate by 10%. Beta-blockers may also have other negative effects on energy metabolism. Obesity management in overweight hypertensive patients may therefore be more difficult in the presence of beta-blocker treatment. We therefore question the use of beta-blockers as first-line therapy for overweight or obese patients with uncomplicated hypertension.

The Inclusion of Women, the Elderly and Minorities in Clinical Trials of Antihypertensive Drugs

The Inclusion of Women, the Elderly and Minorities in Clinical Trials of Antihypertensive Drugs

Response to “inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 — The perspective of NIH clinical trialists”

Response to “inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 — The perspective of NIH clinical trialists”

Response to “inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 — The perspective of NIH clinical trialists”

Response to “inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 — The perspective of NIH clinical trialists”

Response to “inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 — The perspective of NIH clinical trialists”

Response to “inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 — The perspective of NIH clinical trialists”

Discussion of “inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 — The perspective of NIH clinical trialists”

Discussion of “inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 — The perspective of NIH clinical trialists”

Inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 — The perspective of NIH clinical trialists

Inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 — The perspective of NIH clinical trialists

Response to “inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 — The perspective of NIH clinical trialists”

Response to “inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 — The perspective of NIH clinical trialists”

Response to “inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 — The perspective of NIH clinical trialists”

Response to “inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 — The perspective of NIH clinical trialists”

Inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials

Inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials

Commentary regarding “inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 — the perspective of NIH clinical trialists”

Commentary regarding “inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 — the perspective of NIH clinical trialists”

The hand on your purse strings.

If your research is funded by the U.S. government, Barbara Mikulski is likely to have at least a finger on your purse strings. The Senate appropriations subcommittee she chairs handles the budgets of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the research funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And as the Democratic junior Senator from Maryland, Mikulski looks out for the interests of three of her state's major employers of scientists: the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In the 7 years she has served in the Senate, Mikulski has parlayed those attributes into a position with more influence over nonmilitary R&D than perhaps anybody else now on Capitol Hill. But the scientific community has long been uneasy about Mikulski's growing power over science funding. Last fall, she shook up policy circles by telling NSF that, unless it devotes 60% of its budget to strategic research, she might shift some of its funds to other agencies. (NSF officials say the current figure is 55%, but there is much disagreement about the meaning of the phrase.) She recently angered some in the biomedical establishment by spearheading efforts to force NIH to pay more attention to women's health issues-even spelling out legislative requirements for the inclusion ofwomen and minorities in clinical trials. And she has long been a key supporter of the space station-a multibillion-dollar venture that many researchers believe is siphoning money from science. A recent major address at the National Academy of Sciences reassured many researchers, however. (See page 221 for the text of her remarks.) And on 23 March, she sat down with editors of Science for a 75minute interview filled with examples of what she sees as strengths and weaknesses in the federal scientific enterprise-and how she hopes to change it. Barely touching the club sandwiches and mineral water laid out on the table of her well-appointed office in