ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 697

Differing Opinions on Clinical Research Between Healthcare Providers and Lupus Patients

Cristina Arriens1, Dylan Forciea 2, Judith James 1 and Joan T. Merrill 3, 1Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, 2Oseberg, Oklahoma City, OK, 3Okalahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, OK

Meeting: 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting

Keywords: health disparities and health education, Questionnaires, race/ethnicity, Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Sunday, November 10, 2019

Title: SLE – Clinical Poster I: Epidemiology & Pathogenesis

Session Type: Poster Session (Sunday)

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Although SLE disproportionately affects minority racial groups, this population is significantly under-represented in clinical trials, increasing risk for underpowered, incorrect conclusions in race-based sub-group analyses. The decision to participate in clinical research is complex. Primary care providers (PCPs) have the ability to inform their patients about research and refer to specialists who participate in clinical trials. We evaluated knowledge of SLE and thoughts about clinical research participation with both PCPs and lupus patients.

Methods: Lupus patients and PCPs completed a pre-test consisting of knowledge and belief questions prior to engaging in an educational program about lupus, clinical research, and human subjects’ protections. As part of the post-test, the same set of questions were repeated. Knowledge questions were analyzed by Fisher’s exact test or McNemar’s test for between group and within group comparisons. Belief questions (Likert scale ratings) were analyzed by Mann-Whitney or Wilcoxon matched pairs for between group and within group comparisons.

Results: 73 providers  and 49 lupus patients completed the questionnaires and program. Knowledge topics included 1) triggers of SLE, 2) racial differences in lupus, and 3) elements of informed consent. On the pre-test there were differences between groups in scoring of the informed consent question (PCP 82% correct and patient 49%, p=0.0001). On the post-test the patients’ scores improved (PCP 92% and patient 73%, p=0.0098). The education program resulted in improvement in all knowledge scores for PCPs and patients (Table 1). Points of view about clinical trials included questions about the impact of differing racial background between provider and patient, education level of study participants, risks of trial participation, and effect of poverty on protocol compliance – the latter two resulted in the greatest incongruence (Figure 1 and 2).

Conclusion: Concepts about race, education, and poverty may impact interactions between clinicians and patients that could inhibit referral to clinical trial centers and clinical trial participation. We found that some providers may hold a belief that indigent patients are poor candidates for clinical trials. Despite a shift away from this opinion following an educational program, providers remained much more likely to retain this point of view compared to lupus patients. Further effort to optimize conditions for clinical trial access to all patients is needed. This work may benefit from better understanding of the barriers that have led to underrepresentation of minority patients.


Figure Knowledge Q Table

Table 1. Knowledge Questions. Primary care providers -MDs, DOs, PAs, NPs- and lupus patients were asked the same questions on the topics of: 1- triggers of SLE, 2- racial differences in lupus, and 3- elements of informed consent. All scores improved after the educational program.


Figure poverty_AB

Figure 1 A & B. Mixed responses were obtained from primary care providers -A- when asked whether they believe poverty might reduce protocol adherence in clinical trials. Patients -B- were less likely to agree that poverty reduced protocol adherence both before the program -p<0.0001- and after the program -p<0.0001- when compared to providers. Providers shifted towards disagreement after completing the educational program -p=0.02-.


Figure risks_AB

Figure 2 A & B. Significant differences in responses between providers and patients were noted before the program -p<0.0001- and after the program -p=0.02- with providers more concerned than patients about potential risks in clinical trials. Following the program patients shifted slightly towards more concern about risks and providers slightly less, neither of these changes were significant.


Disclosure: C. Arriens, AstraZeneca, 5, BMS, 2, 5, Exagen, 2, GSK, 2, 5; D. Forciea, None; J. James, Abbvie, 5, Janssen, 5, Progentec, 2, Progentec Diagnostics, Inc., 2, Xencor, 2, Xencor, Inc., 2; J. Merrill, Abbvie, 5, Amgen, 5, Astellas, 5, AstraZeneca, 5, BMS, 2, 5, Celgene, 5, EMD Serono, 5, GSK, 2, 5, Idorsia, 5, ILTOO, 5, Immupharma, 5, Incyte, 5, Janssen, 5, Lilly, 5, Remegen, 5, Servier, 5, Xencor, Inc., 2.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Arriens C, Forciea D, James J, Merrill J. Differing Opinions on Clinical Research Between Healthcare Providers and Lupus Patients [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019; 71 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/differing-opinions-on-clinical-research-between-healthcare-providers-and-lupus-patients/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/differing-opinions-on-clinical-research-between-healthcare-providers-and-lupus-patients/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology