Disparities exist in enrollment in clinical trials and biorepositories among adults with low socioeconomic status, racial and ethnic minority groups and individuals who live in rural areas. Diverse participation is necessary to identify the most effective treatments in different groups. The purpose of this study was to use qualitative methods to identify factors that may affect the likelihood that members of underrepresented groups choose to participate in clinical trials and/or biobanking. We conducted 14 focus groups and seven telephone interviews in urban and rural areas of Louisiana to: (1) identify barriers and facilitators to participation; and (2) elicit input in crafting clear, culturally appropriate language and recruitment strategies. Of 103 participants, 25 were safety-net healthcare providers, 18 were primary care or oncology clinic patients, and 60 were members of social and faith-based groups. Patients and community participants were English-speaking, 79% were African American, 81% were female and 24% lived in rural areas. Barriers to participation identified were lack of knowledge about clinical trials and biobanks; limited specific information and access to participation, trust and privacy concerns about clinical trials and biobanking Facilitators included: altruism, high interest in medical research particularly studies that might benefit them or their families; plain language, culturally appropriate information; convenient access to studies; and input of a trusted provider. In addition, all primary care providers were interested in having clinical trial options available for their patients but did not have time to search for available trials. Results of this study can inform the development of education materials and strategies to increase participation of underrepresented groups in clinical trial and biobanking.

This article examines the relationship between literacy and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening knowledge, beliefs, and experiences, with a focus on fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs). Participants were 975 patients in 8 Louisiana federally qualified health centers. Participants were 50 years of age or older and not up to date with CRC screening; approximately half (52%) had low literacy (less than a 9th-grade level). Participants with low literacy were less likely than were those with adequate literacy to be aware of advertisements promoting CRC screening (58.7% vs. 76.3%, p < .0001) or to believe it was very helpful to find CRC early (74.5% vs. 91.9%, p < .0001). The majority of participants had positive beliefs about the benefits of CRC screening using FOBTs. Participants with low literacy had more perceived barriers to FOBT completion and were more likely to strongly agree or agree that FOBTs would be confusing, embarrassing, or a lot of trouble; however, none of these remained significant in multivariate analyses controlling for relevant covariates. Confidence in being able to obtain an FOBT kit was high among those with low and adequate literacy (89.8% vs. 93.1%, respectively, p = .20); yet multivariate analyses revealed a significant difference in regard to literacy (p = .04) with low-literacy participants indicating less confidence. There was no significant difference by literacy in ever receiving a physician recommendation for CRC screening (38.4% low vs. 39.0% adequate, p = .79); however, multivariate analyses revealed significant differences in FOBT completion by literacy (p = .036). Overall, findings suggest that literacy is a factor in patients' CRC knowledge, beliefs, and confidence in obtaining a FOBT.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to measure the readability and user-friendliness (clarity, complexity, organization, appearance, and cultural appropriateness of materials) of parent education brochures on newborn screening.METHODS. We studied English-language versions of the brochures that state newborn screening programs prepare and distribute. We obtained brochures from 48 states and Puerto Rico. We evaluated each brochure for readability with the Flesch reading ease formula. User-friendliness of the brochures was assessed with an instrument we created that contained 22 specific criteria grouped into 5 categories, ie, layout, illustrations, message, manageable information, and cultural appropriateness.RESULTS. Most current newborn screening brochures should be revised to make them more readable and user-friendly for parents. Ninety-two percent of brochures were written at a reading level that is higher than the average reading level of US adults (eighth-grade level). In most brochures, the essential information for parents was buried. Although all brochures were brief and focused on the newborn screening tests being performed, 81% needed improvement in getting to the point quickly and making it easy for parents to identify what they needed to know or to do. None of the brochures scored high in all 22 criteria on the user-friendliness checklist.CONCLUSIONS. Parent education materials about newborn screening should be revised to be easier to read and more user-friendly, by lowering the reading difficulty to eighth-grade level and focusing on issues such as layout, illustrations, message, information, and cultural appropriateness. It is important that state newborn screening programs and organizations work with parents to develop and to evaluate materials to ensure that they are user-friendly.

OBJECTIVES. The purpose of this study was to identify what stakeholders considered best practices for parent-provider communication regarding newborn hearing screening and diagnosis. We used consensus data to develop educational materials for parents. METHODS. We conducted 29 focus groups and 23 individual interviews between October 2003 and May 2004. Participants included (1) English- and Spanish-speaking parents of infants <18 months of age who had experience with hospital-based newborn hearing screening; (2) parents of children with hearing loss; (3) primary care providers who provide prenatal care or care for newborns; and (4) audiologists, audiology technicians, and hospital nurses. RESULTS. Communication to parents about hospital-based newborn hearing screening was limited. Most parents first learned about the screening in the hospital, but all stakeholders thought a more opportune time for education was before the birth. For parents of infants who did not pass the newborn hearing screening, stakeholders recommended direct communication about the urgency of diagnostic testing. They also indicated that primary care providers needed current information regarding hearing screening, diagnostic testing, and early intervention. All stakeholders thought that a brief brochure for parents to take home would be helpful for hospital-based screening and, if necessary, subsequent diagnostic testing. Primary care providers requested basic, to-the-point information. CONCLUSIONS. The most opportune time to begin discussion of newborn hearing screening is before the birth. Providers need up-to-date information on current standards of hearing screening, diagnosis, and intervention. User-friendly patient education materials, such as those we developed, could assist providers in educating parents.

Background: Significant disparities exist in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates among those of low socioeconomic status, with fewer years of education, lacking health insurance, or living in rural areas.Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the effectiveness of 2 follow‐up approaches to a health literacy intervention to improve CRC screening: automated telephone call or personal call. Patients aged 50 to 75 years residing in 4 rural community clinics in Louisiana were given a structured interview that assessed demographic, health literacy and CRC screening barriers, knowledge, and attitudes. All were given health literacy–informed CRC education, a patient‐friendly CRC screening pamphlet, simplified fecal immunochemical test (FIT) instructions, and a FIT kit, and a “teach‐back” method was used to confirm understanding. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 telephone follow‐up arms. If they did not mail their FIT kit within 4 weeks, they received a reminder call and were called again at 8 weeks if the test still was not received.Results: A total of 620 patients were enrolled. Approximately 55% were female, 66% were African American, and 40% had limited literacy. The overall FIT completion rate was 68%: 69.2% in the automated telephone call arm and 67% in the personal call arm. Greater than one‐half of the patients (range, 58%‐60%) returned the FIT kit without receiving a telephone call. There was no difference noted with regard to the effectiveness of the follow‐up calls; each increased the return rate by 9%.Conclusions: Providing FIT kits and literacy‐appropriate education at regularly scheduled clinic visits with a follow‐up telephone call when needed was found to increase CRC screening among low‐income, rural patients. The lower cost automated call was just as effective as the personal call.