Recruiting an underserved,difficult to reach population into a cancer trial: Strategies from the Restore- 2 Rehabilitation Trial for gay and bisexual prostate cancer patients

Abstract

Background/aims:

Sexual minorities are small and under-researched populations that are at disproportionate risk for cancer and poor cancer outcomes. Described as a “hidden population,” the principal research challenge has been to develop effective methods to identify and recruit such cancer patients into cancer studies. Online recruitment strategies, as well as targeted clinic recruitment using patient-entered sexual orientation and gender identity data from electronic medical records have potential to transform recruitment, but studies testing the effects of how to recruit using these have not been published.

Methods:

In 2019, we conducted a naturalistic, three-arm, stratified prospective study to compare three recruitment strategies: (a) clinic based recruitment of prostate cancer patients from gay health and urology clinics; (b) directly from the gay community; and (c) online recruitment (through cancer support, sex/dating, and social sites). For each strategy, we estimated time, workload, and direct costs involved. To study how recruitment strategy may affect sampling, we tested for retention rates, demographic and outcome differences across sites. Using these methods, we successfully recruited 401 gay and bisexual prostate cancer patients into a randomized, controlled, 24-month trial testing an online sexual and urinary rehabilitation curriculum tailored for this population.

Results:

There were seven key results. First, it is possible to recruit substantial numbers of sexual minority men into prostate cancer studies provided online recruitment methods are used. Second, we observed big differences in dropout during study onboarding by recruitment source. Third, within online recruitment, the online sex/dating application (app) was the most successful and efficient, followed by the cancer support site, and then the social networking site. Fourth, while clinics were the cheapest source of recruitment, they were time intensive and low in yield. Fifth, the cancer support site and sex/dating app recruits differed by several characteristics, with the former being more rehabilitation-focused while the latter were younger and more sexually active. Sixth, we found almost no differences in outcomes across the three online recruitment sites. Seventh, because retention in online studies has been a concern, we confirm very low attrition at 3- and 6 months into the trial.

Conclusion:

For sexual minority cancer research, more research on how to use sexual orientation and gender identity electronic medical record data for clinic-based recruitment is needed. For other small or hard-to-reach populations, researchers should compare and publish online versus offline recruitment strategies.

Keywords

Hidden populations sexual minority gay bisexual online recruitment clinic recruitment gay community recruitment recruitment cost recruitment effort

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

National Cancer Institute (NCI). Research answers to National Cancer Institute's (NCI) provocative questions (RFA-CA-20-004), 2020, https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/rfa-ca-20-004.html

Notice of Special Interest in Research on the Health of Sexual Gender Minority (SGM) Populations. DHHS, 2019, https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-MD-19-001.html

The Williams Institute UCLA School of Law. LGBT Demographic Data Interactive. UCLA, https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/visualization/lgbt-stats/?topic=LGBT#density (2021, accessed 10 February 2021).

Rosser

BRS

Rider

Kapoor

, et al. What every urologist and oncologist should know about treating sexual and gender minority prostate cancer patients: translating research findings into clinical practice. Transl Androl Urol 2021; 10(7): 3208–3225.

Sexual Gender Minority Research Office (SGMRO) National Institutes of Health (NIH). Sexual and gender minority populations in NIH-supported research (NOT-OD-19-139), 2019, https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-19-139.html (2019, accessed 28 January 2020).

Agenor

. Chapter 8. What are the numbers? The epidemiology of cancer by sexual orientation and gender identity. In: Boehmer

Elk

(eds) Cancer and the LGBT community: Unique perspectives from risk to survivorship. Cham: Springer, 2015, pp. 117–140.

Quinn

Sanchez

Sutton

, et al. Cancer and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) populations. CA Cancer J Clin 2015; 65(5): 384–400.

Burkhalter

Margolies

Sigurdsson

, et al. The national LGBT cancer action plan: a white paper of the 2014 national summit on cancer in the LGBT communities. LGBT Health 2016; 3(1): 19–31.

Margolies

Brown

. Current state of knowledge about cancer in lesbians, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Semin Oncol Nurs 2018; 34(1): 3–11.

10.

Kamen

Blosnich

Lytle

, et al. Cigarette smoking disparities among sexual minority cancer survivors. Prev Med Rep 2015; 2: 283–286.

11.

Kamen

Heckler

Janelsins

, et al. A dyadic exercise intervention to reduce psychological distress among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual cancer survivors. LGBT Health 2016; 3(1): 57–64.

12.

Kamen

Palesh

Gerry

, et al. Disparities in health risk behavior and psychological distress among gay versus heterosexual male cancer survivors. LGBT Health 2014; 1(2): 86–92.

13.

Frisch

Smith

Grulich

, et al. Cancer in a population-based cohort of men and women in registered homosexual partnerships. Am J Epidemiol 2003; 157(11): 966–972.

14.

Boehmer

Miao

Maxwell

, et al. Sexual minority population density and incidence of lung, colorectal and female breast cancer in California. BMJ Open 2014; 4(3): e004461.

15.

Baker

Durso

Cray

. Moving the needle: The impact of the Affordable Care Act on LGBT communities. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2014.

16.

Gates

. In US, LGBT more likely than non-LGBT to be uninsured, 2014, https://news.gallup.com/poll/175445/lgbt-likely-non-lgbt-uninsured.aspx

17.

Heslin

Gore

King

, et al. Sexual orientation and testing for prostate and colorectal cancers among men in California. Med Care 2008; 46(12): 1240–1248.

18.

Hart

Bowen

. Sexual orientation and intentions to obtain breast cancer screening. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2009; 18(2): 177–185.

19.

Meads

Moore

. Breast cancer in lesbians and bisexual women: systematic review of incidence, prevalence and risk studies. BMC Public Health 2013; 13(1): 1127.

20.

Blank

Descartes

Asencio

. Cancer screening in gay and bisexual men and transgender people. In: Boehmer

Elk

(eds) Cancer and the LGBT community. Cham: Springer, 2015, pp. 99–114.

21.

Polek

Hardie

. Cancer screening and prevention in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered community and Asian lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered members. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs 2020; 7(1): 6–11.

22.

Kent

Wheldon

Smith

, et al. Care delivery, patient experiences, and health outcomes among sexual and gender minority patients with cancer and survivors: a scoping review. Cancer 2019; 125(24): 4371–4379.

23.

Smith

Filiault

Drummond

MJN

, et al. The psychosocial impact of prostate cancer on patients and their partners. Med J Aust 2007; 186(3): 159–160.

24.

Capistrant

Lesher

Kohli

, et al. Social support and health related quality of life among gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 2018; 45(4): 439–455.

25.

Capistrant

Torres

Merengwa

, et al. Caregiving and social support for gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer. Psychooncology 2016; 25(11): 1329–1336.

26.

Kurdek

. Differences between heterosexual-nonparent couples and gay, lesbian and heterosexual-parent cohabitating couples. J Marriage Fam 2001; 60: 553–568.

27.

Kurdek

. Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples. ? J Marriage Fam 2004; 66(4): 880–900.

28.

Kurdek

. What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2005; 14(5): 251–254.

29.

Kamen

Smith-Stoner

Heckler

, et al. Social support, self-rated health, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender identity disclosure to cancer care providers. Oncol Nurs Forum 2015; 42(1): 44–51.

30.

Kamen

Mustian

Dozier

, et al. Disparities in psychological distress impacting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender cancer survivors. Psychooncology 2015; 24(11): 1384–1391.

31.

Boehmer

Case

. Physicians don't ask, sometimes patients tell: disclosure of sexual orientation among women with breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004; 101(8): 1882–1889.

32.

McGregor

Carver

Antoni

, et al. Distress and internalized homophobia among lesbian women treated for early stage breast cancer. Psychol Women Q 2001; 25(1): 1–9.

33.

Polek

Hardie

Crowley

. Lesbians' disclosure of sexual orientation and satisfaction with care. J Transcult Nurs 2008; 19(3): 243–249.

34.

West

Torres

Mitteldorf

, et al. The challenge of coming out to providers by gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer: qualitative results from the Restore study. Int J Sex Health 2021; 33(3): 426–438.

35.

Crangle

Latini

Hart

. The effects of attachment and outness on illness adjustment among gay men with prostate cancer. Psychooncology 2017; 26(4): 500–507.

36.

Johnston

Shearer

. Internal medicine resident attitudes, prior education, comfort, and knowledge regarding delivering comprehensive primary care to transgender patients. Transgend Health 2017; 2(1): 91–95.

37.

Krehely

. How to close the LGBT health disparities gap. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2009.

38.

Obedin-Maliver

Goldsmith

Stewart

, et al. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender–related content in undergraduate medical education. JAMA 2011; 306(9): 971–977.

39.

White

Brenman

Paradis

, et al. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender patient care: medical students' preparedness and comfort. Teach Learn Med 2015; 27(3): 254–263.

40.

Safer

Coleman

Feldman

, et al. Barriers to health care for transgender individuals. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 2016; 23(2): 168–171.

41.

Fobair

O’Hanlan

Koopman

, et al. Comparison of lesbian and heterosexual women’s response to newly diagnosed breast cancer. Psychooncology 2001; 10(1): 40–51.

42.

Cochran

Mays

. Risk of breast cancer mortality among women cohabiting with same sex partners: findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 1997–2003. J Womens Health 2012; 21(5): 528–533.

43.

Boehmer

Miao

Ozonoff

. Cancer survivorship and sexual orientation. Cancer 2011; 117(16): 3796–3804.

44.

Boehmer

Ozonoff

Miao

. An ecological approach to examine lung cancer disparities due to sexual orientation. Public Health 2012; 126(7): 605–612.

45.

Hart

Coon

Kowalkowski

, et al. Gay men with prostate cancer report signfiicantly worse HRQOL than heterosexual men. Annu Rev Sex Res 2011; 185: e68–e69.

46.

Rose

Ussher

Perz

. Let’s talk about gay sex: gay and bisexual men's sexual communication with healthcare professionals after prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer Care 2017; 26(1): e12469.

47.

Ussher

Perz

Kellett

, et al. Health-related quality of life, psychological distress, and sexual changes following prostate cancer: a comparison of gay and bisexual men with heterosexual men. J Sex Med 2016; 13(3): 425–434.

48.

Loughlin

. Cancer in the transgender community. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16(16): e577.

49.

Blank

. Gay men and prostate cancer: invisible diversity. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23(12): 2593–2596.

50.

Perlman

. Introduction: why a book about prostate cancer for gay men? In: Perlman

(ed.) What every gay man needs to know about prostate cancer. New York: Magnus Books, 2013, pp.1–7.

51.

Filiault

Drummond

MJN

. Gay men and prostate cancer: voicing the concerns of a hidden population. J Mens Health 2008; 5(4): 327–332.

52.

Thomas

Wootten

Robinson

. The experiences of gay and bisexual men diagnosed with prostate cancer: results from an online focus group. Eur J Cancer Care 2013; 22(4): 522–529.

53.

Tabaac

Sutter

Wall

, et al. Gender identity disparities in cancer screening behaviors. Am J Prev Med 2018; 54(3): 385–393.

54.

Motofei

Rowland

Popa

, et al. Preliminary study with bicalutamide in heterosexual and homosexual patients with prostate cancer: a possible implication of androgens in male homosexual arousal. BJU Int 2011; 108(1): 110–115.

55.

Lee

Breau

Eapen

. Pilot study on quality of life and sexual function in men-who-have-sex-with-men treated for prostate cancer. J Sex Med 2013; 10(8): 2094–2100.

56.

Hart

Coon

Kowalkowski

, et al. Changes in sexual roles and quality of life for gay men after prostate cancer: challenges for sexual health providers. J Sex Med 2014; 11(9): 2308–2317.

57.

Dowsett

Lyons

Duncan

, et al. Flexibility in men's sexual practices in response to iatrogenic erectile dysfunction after prostate cancer treatment. Sex Med 2014; 2(3): 115–120.

58.

Allensworth-Davies

Talcott

Heeren

, et al. The health effects of masculine self-esteem following treatment for localized prostate cancer among gay men. LGBT Health 2015; 3(1): 49–56.

59.

Mitteldorf

. Treatment disparities between heterosexual and gay and bisexual men diagnosed with prostate cancer [Abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: e16548.

60.

Rosser

BRS

Kohli

Polter

, et al. The sexual functioning of gay and bisexual men following prostate cancer treatment: results from the Restore study. Arch Sex Behav 2020; 49(5): 1589–1600.

61.

Moseson

Kumar

Juusola

. Comparison of study samples recruited with virtual versus traditional recruitment methods. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2020; 19: 100590.

62.

Juraschek

Plante

Charleston

, et al. Use of online recruitment strategies in a randomized trial of cancer survivors. Clin Trials 2018; 15(2): 130–138.

63.

Rosser

BRS

Gurak

Horvath

, et al. The challenges of ensuring participant consent in Internet-based sex studies: a case study of the Men’s INTernet Sex (MINTS-I and II) studies. J Comput-Mediat Commun 2009; 14(3).

64.

Rosser

BRS

Miner

Bockting

, et al. HIV risk and the Internet: results of the Men’s INTernet Sex (MINTS) study. AIDS Behav 2009; 13(4): 746–756.

65.

Rosser

BRS

Oakes

Horvath

, et al. HIV sexual risk behavior by men who use the Internet to seek sex with men: results of the Men’s INTernet Sex Study-II (MINTS-II). AIDS Behav 2009; 13(3): 488–498.

66.

Latini

Hart

Coon

, et al. Sexual rehabilitation after localized prostate cancer: current interventions and future directions. Cancer J 2009; 15(1): 34–40.

67.

Wassersug

Westle

Dowsett

. Men's sexual and relational adaptations to erectile dysfunction after prostate cancer treatment. Int J Sex Health 2017; 29(1): 69–79.

68.

Brimo

Montironi

Egevad

, et al. Contemporary grading for prostate cancer: implications for patient care. Eur Urol 2013; 63(5): 892–901.

69.

Wei

Dunn

Litwin

, et al. Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology 2000; 56(6): 809–905.

70.

Derogatis

. BSI-18: Administration, scoring and procedures manual. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments, 2001.

71.

Choi

Wong

Wan

, et al. The internal and external responsiveness of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) and Short Form-12 Health Survey version 2 (SF-12 v2) in patients with prostate cancer. Qual Life Res 2016; 25(9): 2379–2393.

72.

Sullivan

Grey

Rosser

BRS

. Emerging technologies for HIV prevention for MSM: what we have learned, and ways forward. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2013; 63(Supp1.): S102–S107.

73.

Konstan

Rosser

BRS

Ross

, et al. The story of subject naught: a cautionary but optimistic tale of Internet survey research. J Comput-Mediat Commun 2005; 10(2), https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/full/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00248.x

74.

Boehmer

Clark

Timm

, et al. Comparing sexual minority cancer survivors recruited through a cancer registry to convenience methods of recruitment. Women Health Iss 2011; 21(5): 345–352.