ABSTRACT
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic created an unprecedented need for population-level clinical trials focused on the discovery of life-saving therapies and treatments. However, there is limited information on perception of research participation among perinatal populations, a population of particular interest during the pandemic. Methods: Eligible respondents were 18 years or older, were currently pregnant or had an infant (≤12 months old), and lived in Florida within 50 miles of sites participating in the OneFlorida Clinical Research Consortium. Respondents were recruited via Qualtrics panels between April and September 2020. Respondents completed survey items about barriers and facilitators to participation and answered sociodemographic questions. Results: Of 533 respondents, most were between 25 and 34 years of age (n = 259, 49%) and identified as White (n = 303, 47%) and non-Hispanic (n = 344, 65%). Facebook was the most popular social media platform among our respondents. The most common barriers to research participation included poor explanation of study goals, discomforts to the infant, and time commitment. Recruitment through healthcare providers was perceived as the best way to learn about clinical research studies. When considering research participation, "myself" had the greatest influence, followed by familial ties. Noninvasive biological samples were highly acceptable. Hispanics had higher positive perspectives on willingness to participate in a randomized study (p = 0.009). Education (p = 0.007) had significant effects on willingness to release personal health information. Conclusion: When recruiting women during the pregnancy and postpartum periods for perinatal studies, investigators should consider protocols that account for common barriers and preferred study information sources. Social media-based recruitment is worthy of adoption.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in SARS-CoV-2 prevalence are apparent. Race is a sociocultural construct, necessitating investigation into how sociocultural factors contribute. METHODS: This cross-sectional study linked laboratory data of adult patients between February 29 and May 15, 2020 with socio-demographics variables from the 2018 American Community Survey (ACS). Medical sites included healthcare organizations in Michigan, New York, North Carolina, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Race was treated as a proxy for racism and not biological essentialism. Laboratory data included patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, test result, test location, and residential ZIP code. ACS data included economic and educational variables contributing to an SES Index, population density, proportion Medicaid, and racial composition for corresponding ZIP code. Associations between race/socioeconomic variables and test results were examined using odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: Of 126 452 patients [mean (SD) age 51.9 (18.4) years; 52 747 (41.7%) men; 68 856 (54.5%) White and 27 805 (22.0%) Black], 18 905 (15.0%) tested positive. Of positive tests, 5238 (SD 27.7%) were White and 7223 (SD 38.2%) were Black. Black race increased the odds of a positive test; this finding was consistent across sites [OR 2.11 (95% CI 1.95-2.29)]. When subset by race, higher SES increased the odds of a positive test for White patients [OR 1.10 (95% CI 1.05-1.16)] but decreased the odds for Black patients [OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.99)]. Black patients, but not White patients, who tested positive overwhelmingly resided in more densely populated areas. CONCLUSIONS: Black race was associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity and the relationship between SES and test positivity differed by race, suggesting the impact of socioeconomic status on test positivity is race-specific.