Analysis of Population Differences in Digital Conversations About Cancer Clinical Trials: Advanced Data Mining and Extraction Study.
cancer
clinical trials
data mining
health care disparities
health communication
natural language processing
race and ethnicity
social media
text extraction
Journal
JMIR cancer
ISSN: 2369-1999
Titre abrégé: JMIR Cancer
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101666844
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Sep 2021
23 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
18
11
2020
accepted:
13
06
2021
revised:
11
06
2021
entrez:
23
9
2021
pubmed:
24
9
2021
medline:
24
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Racial and ethnic diversity in clinical trials for cancer treatment is essential for the development of treatments that are effective for all patients and for identifying potential differences in toxicity between different demographics. Mining of social media discussions about clinical trials has been used previously to identify patient barriers to enrollment in clinical trials; however, a comprehensive breakdown of sentiments and barriers by various racial and ethnic groups is lacking. The aim of this study is to use an innovative methodology to analyze web-based conversations about cancer clinical trials and to identify and compare conversation topics, barriers, and sentiments between different racial and ethnic populations. We analyzed 372,283 web-based conversations about cancer clinical trials, of which 179,339 (48.17%) of the discussions had identifiable race information about the individual posting the conversations. Using sophisticated machine learning software and analyses, we were able to identify key sentiments and feelings, topics of interest, and barriers to clinical trials across racial groups. The stage of treatment could also be identified in many of the discussions, allowing for a unique insight into how the sentiments and challenges of patients change throughout the treatment process for each racial group. We observed that only 4.01% (372,283/9,284,284) of cancer-related discussions referenced clinical trials. Within these discussions, topics of interest and identified clinical trial barriers discussed by all racial and ethnic groups throughout the treatment process included health care professional interactions, cost of care, fear, anxiety and lack of awareness, risks, treatment experiences, and the clinical trial enrollment process. Health care professional interactions, cost of care, and enrollment processes were notably discussed more frequently in minority populations. Other minor variations in the frequency of discussion topics between ethnic and racial groups throughout the treatment process were identified. This study demonstrates the power of digital search technology in health care research. The results are also valuable for identifying the ideal content and timing for the delivery of clinical trial information and resources for different racial and ethnic groups.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Racial and ethnic diversity in clinical trials for cancer treatment is essential for the development of treatments that are effective for all patients and for identifying potential differences in toxicity between different demographics. Mining of social media discussions about clinical trials has been used previously to identify patient barriers to enrollment in clinical trials; however, a comprehensive breakdown of sentiments and barriers by various racial and ethnic groups is lacking.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to use an innovative methodology to analyze web-based conversations about cancer clinical trials and to identify and compare conversation topics, barriers, and sentiments between different racial and ethnic populations.
METHODS
METHODS
We analyzed 372,283 web-based conversations about cancer clinical trials, of which 179,339 (48.17%) of the discussions had identifiable race information about the individual posting the conversations. Using sophisticated machine learning software and analyses, we were able to identify key sentiments and feelings, topics of interest, and barriers to clinical trials across racial groups. The stage of treatment could also be identified in many of the discussions, allowing for a unique insight into how the sentiments and challenges of patients change throughout the treatment process for each racial group.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We observed that only 4.01% (372,283/9,284,284) of cancer-related discussions referenced clinical trials. Within these discussions, topics of interest and identified clinical trial barriers discussed by all racial and ethnic groups throughout the treatment process included health care professional interactions, cost of care, fear, anxiety and lack of awareness, risks, treatment experiences, and the clinical trial enrollment process. Health care professional interactions, cost of care, and enrollment processes were notably discussed more frequently in minority populations. Other minor variations in the frequency of discussion topics between ethnic and racial groups throughout the treatment process were identified.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrates the power of digital search technology in health care research. The results are also valuable for identifying the ideal content and timing for the delivery of clinical trial information and resources for different racial and ethnic groups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34554099
pii: v7i3e25621
doi: 10.2196/25621
pmc: PMC8498899
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e25621Informations de copyright
©Edith A Perez, Elizabeth M Jaffee, John Whyte, Cheryl A Boyce, John D Carpten, Guillermina Lozano, Raymond M Williams, Karen M Winkfield, David Bernstein, Sung Poblete. Originally published in JMIR Cancer (https://cancer.jmir.org), 23.09.2021.
Références
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2019 Jan;39:105-114
pubmed: 31099636
Clin Trials. 2017 Apr;14(2):170-179
pubmed: 28166647
JMIR Res Protoc. 2019 Aug 26;8(8):13914
pubmed: 31452524
J Health Commun. 2019;24(12):912-922
pubmed: 31709917
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Sep 13;:JCO1801132
pubmed: 30212297
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Jul;158(2):395-405
pubmed: 27339067
J Cult Divers. 2007 Summer;14(2):56-60
pubmed: 19175244
Cancer Control. 2016 Oct;23(4):327-337
pubmed: 27842322
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2017 Feb 24;3(1):e10
pubmed: 28235749
J Biomed Semantics. 2018 Jun 20;9(1):19
pubmed: 29925405
Cancer Epidemiol. 2014 Oct;38(5):645-6
pubmed: 25048155
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2019 Jan;39:11-18
pubmed: 31099681
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015 Mar;97(3):263-73
pubmed: 25669658
PLoS Comput Biol. 2015 Oct 29;11(10):e1004513
pubmed: 26513245
Oncologist. 2016 Apr;21(4):467-74
pubmed: 26975867
Oncologist. 2018 Feb;23(2):243-246
pubmed: 29259072
J Cancer Educ. 2021 Feb;36(1):110-117
pubmed: 31444640
J Oncol Pract. 2019 Apr;15(4):e289-e299
pubmed: 30830833
Epilepsia. 2020 May;61(5):951-958
pubmed: 32383797
Aust Crit Care. 2019 Nov;32(6):516-523
pubmed: 30237059
J Cancer Educ. 2020 Oct;35(5):841-849
pubmed: 31713103
Front Cell Dev Biol. 2019 Apr 30;7:74
pubmed: 31114788
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2014;:e101-5
pubmed: 24857086
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Feb 15;22(4):730-4
pubmed: 14966098
Cell J. 2020 Oct;22(3):319-324
pubmed: 31863657
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017 Nov;15(11):1392-1399
pubmed: 29118231
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2015 Jan;19(1):210-8
pubmed: 25029520
Oncologist. 2019 Aug;24(8):1048-1055
pubmed: 30988039
Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2007 May;4(2):185-7; discussion 187-8
pubmed: 17494729
Inf Discov Deliv. 2017;45(3):110-120
pubmed: 31179401
J Cancer Educ. 2019 Dec;34(6):1112-1119
pubmed: 30112612