10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Use of a community advisory board to build equitable algorithms for participation in clinical trials: a protocol paper for HoPeNET

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Participation from racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trials has been burdened by issues surrounding mistrust and access to healthcare. There is emerging use of machine learning (ML) in clinical trial recruitment and evaluation. However, for individuals from groups who are recipients of societal biases, utilisation of ML can lead to the creation and use of biased algorithms. To minimise bias, the design of equitable ML tools that advance health equity could be guided by community engagement processes. The Howard University Partnership with the National Institutes of Health for Equitable Clinical Trial Participation for Racial/Ethnic Communities Underrepresented in Research (HoPeNET) seeks to create an ML-based infrastructure from community advisory board (CAB) experiences to enhance participation of African-Americans/Blacks in clinical trials.

          Methods and analysis

          This triphased cross-sectional study (24 months, n=56) will create a CAB of community members and research investigators. The three phases of the study include: (1) identification of perceived barriers/facilitators to clinical trial engagement through qualitative/quantitative methods and systems-based model building participation; (2) operation of CAB meetings and (3) development of a predictive ML tool and outcome evaluation. Identified predictors from the participant-derived systems-based map will be used for the ML tool development.

          Ethics and dissemination

          We anticipate minimum risk for participants. Institutional review board approval and informed consent has been obtained and patient confidentiality ensured.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Ensuring Fairness in Machine Learning to Advance Health Equity

          Machine learning is used increasingly in clinical care to improve diagnosis, treatment selection, and health system efficiency. Because machine-learning models learn from historically collected data, populations that have experienced human and structural biases in the past—called protected groups —are vulnerable to harm by incorrect predictions or withholding of resources. This article describes how model design, biases in data, and the interactions of model predictions with clinicians and patients may exacerbate health care disparities. Rather than simply guarding against these harms passively, machine-learning systems should be used proactively to advance health equity. For that goal to be achieved, principles of distributive justice must be incorporated into model design, deployment, and evaluation. The article describes several technical implementations of distributive justice—specifically those that ensure equality in patient outcomes, performance, and resource allocation—and guides clinicians as to when they should prioritize each principle. Machine learning is providing increasingly sophisticated decision support and population-level monitoring, and it should encode principles of justice to ensure that models benefit all patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Group model-building: tackling messy problems

            Jac Vennix (2000)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Process and outcome constructs for evaluating community-based participatory research projects: a matrix of existing measures.

              Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has been widely used in public health research in the last decade as an approach to develop culturally centered interventions and collaborative research processes in which communities are directly involved in the construction and implementation of these interventions and in other application of findings. Little is known, however, about CBPR pathways of change and how these academic-community collaborations may contribute to successful outcomes. A new health CBPR conceptual model (Wallerstein N, Oetzel JG, Duran B et al. CBPR: What predicts outcomes? In: Minkler M, Wallerstein N (eds). Communication Based Participatory Research, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Co., 2008) suggests that relationships between four components: context, group dynamics, the extent of community-centeredness in intervention and/or research design and the impact of these participatory processes on CBPR system change and health outcomes. This article seeks to identify instruments and measures in a comprehensive literature review that relates to these distinct components of the CBPR model and to present them in an organized and indexed format for researcher use. Specifically, 258 articles were identified in a review of CBPR (and related) literature from 2002 to 2008. Based on this review and from recommendations of a national advisory board, 46 CBPR instruments were identified and each was reviewed and coded using the CBPR logic model. The 46 instruments yielded 224 individual measures of characteristics in the CBPR model. While this study does not investigate the quality of the instruments, it does provide information about reliability and validity for specific measures. Group dynamics proved to have the largest number of identified measures, while context and CBPR system and health outcomes had the least. Consistent with other summaries of instruments, such as Granner and Sharpe's inventory (Granner ML, Sharpe PA. Evaluating community coalition characteristics and functioning: a summary of measurement tools. Health Educ Res 2004; 19: 514-32), validity and reliability information were often lacking, and one or both were only available for 65 of the 224 measures. This summary of measures provides a place to start for new and continuing partnerships seeking to evaluate their progress.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Health Care Inform
                BMJ Health Care Inform
                bmjhci
                bmjhci
                BMJ Health & Care Informatics
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2632-1009
                2022
                19 February 2022
                : 29
                : 1
                : e100453
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentTranslational Biobehavioral and Health Disparities Branch , NIH Clinical Center , Bethesda, Maryland, USA
                [2 ]departmentSocial Determinants of Obesity and Cardiovascular Risk Laboratory, Cardiovascular Branch , Division of Intramural Research, NHLBI , Bethesda, Maryland, USA
                [3 ]departmentIntramural Research Program , NIMHD , Bethesda, Maryland, USA
                [4 ]departmentDepartment of Pediatrics , Howard University , Washington, DC, USA
                [5 ]departmentDepartment of Health Sciences and Management, College of Nursing and Allied Health Sciences , Howard Unversity , Washington, DC, USA
                [6 ]departmentDepartment of Nurtritional Sciences, College of Nursing and Allied Health Sciences , Howard University , Washington, DC, USA
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Tiffany M Powell-Wiley; tiffany.powell-wiley@ 123456nih.gov ; Dr Allan Johnson; ajohnson@ 123456howard.edu
                Article
                bmjhci-2021-100453
                10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100453
                8860013
                35185011
                9f95cb05-b033-405a-aff8-b243495451c8
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 31 July 2021
                : 07 January 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004328, Genentech;
                Award ID: 2020 Health Equity Award Grant number G-89258.
                Categories
                Protocol
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                health equity,bmj health informatics,artificial intelligence

                Comments

                Comment on this article