Key result
Higher community research participation is linked to lower area deprivation, social vulnerability, and higher income.
Why the study?
Clinical trial participation is a key translational research initiative, but the influence of community-level factors on research participation rates within a health system needed evaluation.
Cross-Sectional (n=1,069,226)
No
Research participation is significantly associated with community-level socioeconomic factors, with higher participation observed in areas with lower deprivation and higher education and income.
Low research participation rates warrant caution generalizing trial results to clinical care; leaves open questions on enrollment barriers and representativeness.
Objectives/Goals: Since clinical trial participation is a key translational research initiative, the objectiveis to characterize research participants within a health system using electronic health record (EHR) data and evaluate how community-level factors influence research participation rates. Methods/Study Population: Retrospective, cross-sectional study of patients with ICD-10 research encounter codes (Z00.6) from 2016 to 2024 using Rush EHR data organized in the CAPriCORN Common Data Model. Research participation prevalence was the main outcome, calculated by geographic area (3-digit zip codes, Chicago community areas) and linked to Census data for neighborhood factor analysis. Variables include Area Deprivation Index (ADI), Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), education, occupation, and income. The Chi-square test compared demographics and t-tests compared mean SDOH variables between high- and low-participation community areas. Results/Anticipated Results: Of the 1,069,226 patients seen from 2016 to 2024, 11,937 patients had research visits. Of these patients, 45.4% lived in Chicago, 65 years or above is the largest age group (29%), 62% female, 58% White, 82% non-Hispanic, and 9% non-English preferred language. Overall, the research participation prevalence was 1.12%, higher outside of Chicago (1.21%) than within (1.03%). Within Chicago community areas, prevalence ranged from 0.34% to 2.8% (mean: 1.03%, SD: 0.44%). Higher-participating communities (above median) had significantly lower ADI (39.9 vs 61.9), lower SVI (0.51 vs 0.80), lower unemployment (8.0% vs 15.3%), higher bachelor’s degree attainment (43.6% vs 19.6%), higher income ($69,859 vs $36,376), and lower uninsured rates (7.4% vs 11.5%). Discussion/Significance of Impact: This work is the first local exploration of community factors and research participation using curated EHR data. Although limited by single-center data and required entry of EHR codes, it is a step into understanding factors that may influence research participation. Local estimates could be improved by utilizing data from all CAPriCORN sites.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tsai et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Research participation (n=1,069,226). High-participating communities vs. Low-participating communities was evaluated on Area Deprivation Index (ADI).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: