Increasing participation of underrepresented groups in cancer early detection research: a scoping review

Increasing participation of underrepresented groups in cancer early detection research: a scoping review | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Systematic Review Increasing participation of underrepresented groups in cancer early detection research: a scoping review Frederike Brockhoven, Maya Raphael, Nora Pashayan, Ignacia Arteaga This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5005757/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background: Improvements in access to early-detection research on cancer are still urgently needed to ensure that new research on early-stage cancer detection benefits all groups in society. To achieve this, cancer early detection (ED) studies must include participants from all walks of life. There are unique aspects to cancer early detection research that may deter potential research participants and complicate efforts to involve people from underrepresented backgrounds that require a review on its own merit. For instance, a unique risk for cancer ED research is overdiagnosis and overtreatment, in which a tumour is uncovered and treated that would not have led to the patient’s death if left undiscovered and untreated. This potential ‘side effect’ of cancer ED research participation is particularly problematic for those without adequate access to healthcare and insurance. Methods: Contributing to a growing literature on approaches to increase diversity in cancer detection research, we conducted a targeted scoping review to identify published approaches that have been implemented and tested, either quantitatively or qualitatively, to improve participation of minoritised groups in cancer ED research. Results: This review identifies themes in the 38 included studies that aimed to recruit and involve participants from underserved groups in cancer ED research so that future studies may learn from or further test these varied strategies. We narratively group the review in terms of the barriers identified, and the approaches that have been designed to improve participation. These include rethinking recruitment locations and partnerships with local communities, designing educational interventions, combining research with community needs, increasing cultural competence of research teams, and overcoming practical barriers in study design. Conclusions: This scoping literature review highlights various tools, empirically tested, that research teams can employ to improve participation rates of groups underrepresented in cancer ED research. Combinations of these methods can help overcome the perceived barriers to participation in cancer research that mainly affect people without a cancer diagnosis from these minoritised groups. Not only will these methods increase the generalizability and representativeness of studies; the highlighted approaches also contribute to a more significant shift in research culture towards less extractive and more trusting relationships between researchers and the public. minoritised groups diversity early detection cancer research research culture research participation Figures Figure 1 Figure 7 1 INTRODUCTION Early detection (ED) and cancer diagnosis are vital for improving the prospects of cancer patients. When cancers or pre-cancerous lesions are detected earlier, patients’ chances of surviving their disease are dramatically higher( 2 ). Hence, cancer ED research has become a priority of cancer research in the United Kingdom( 1 ), the United States( 3 ), and other countries( 4 ). Yet, improvements in access to early-detection research on cancer are still urgently needed to ensure that new research on early-stage cancer detection benefits all groups in society( 1 ). To achieve this, cancer ED studies must include participants from all walks of life. Still, similarly to many other health research fields, people from ethnic minorities and other underserved and minoritised groups are usually underrepresented in cancer ED studies( 5 – 7 ). There are unique aspects to cancer early detection research that may deter potential research participants and complicate efforts to involve people from underrepresented backgrounds ( 8 , 9 ). Firstly, cancer ED research usually requires the participation of participants who are cancer free or asymptomatic, which thus requires ‘healthy’ people to consider the possibility of developing cancer. Having to think about a potentially lethal disease can put people off participation, especially those who already struggle to access adequate healthcare. This makes participation in cancer ED research a different recruitment process from other cancer clinical trials, which can recruit cancer patients already being treated in hospitals who are aware of their condition. Secondly, cancer-free and symptomatic people may be deterred by the invasive participation procedures that cancer ED research might require ( 10 ). Lastly, participating in cancer ED research can sometimes lead to the discovery of health problems, such as cancer or a higher risk of developing one. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of slow-growing or indolent cancers; and detection of early cancers for which a treatment has not yet proven effective are known risks ( 11 – 14 ). Again, this potential ‘side effect’ of cancer ED research participation is particularly problematic for those without adequate access to healthcare and insurance ( 9 ) . These aspects of cancer ED research demonstrate the need for a scoping literature review about strategies to involve underrepresented groups in research in this particular field of cancer research. Although insights from systematic literature reviews and scoping reviews focusing on increasing participation of minoritised groups in cancer clinical trials ( 15 – 21 ) or clinical trials for other conditions( 22 – 24 ) are beneficial, this scoping review seeks to map out only those tested interventions suitable for the involvement of underrepresented groups in the unique processes of cancer ED research. This review is part of a wider effort to develop recommendations for improving diversity and trust-building in cancer ED research. As part of ‘REPRESENT: A Community Engagement Roadmap to Improve Participant Representation in Cancer Research Early Detection’( 8 , 9 ), we conducted a targeted scoping review to identify the approaches that have been implemented to improve participation of minoritised groups in cancer ED research. The method of a targeted scoping review was chosen to map and analyse the wide range of interventions that have been tested, without excluding studies based on small sample sizes or heterogeneous evaluation methods( 25 ). This review identifies themes in the 38 included studies that aimed to recruit and involve participants from underserved groups in cancer ED research so that future studies may learn from or further test these varied strategies. 2 METHODS 2.1 Search strategy The databases used for this systematic literature review, conducted in April 2022, were PubMed and PsycINFO. The question we sought to answer is: ‘What approaches have been implemented to increase participation of people without a cancer diagnosis from underrepresented groups in cancer early detection research?’. The search strategy consisted of four themes, each forming a set of related (MeSH) terms: research (e.g., clinical trial), underrepresented communities (e.g., underserved, minorit*, African American, Black, Latin*), participation (e.g., engagement, involvement, recruit*), and cancer (e.g., oncol*, lymphoma). The category of ‘underrepresented communities’ included the highest number of terms to ensure a wide range of underserved groups were included in the search. These groups included various ethnic, indigenous, and linguistic minorities, gender and sexual minorities, people with physical disabilities and neurodiverse people, groups marginalised based on their geographic location or socio-economic status, and those often excluded based on their immigration status. Since there are also various terms to denote participation, each with a nuance that can differ between countries and research contexts, it was decided to include all terms that indicate some level of involvement in research. Search strategies and filters were modified for the corresponding search database. Inclusion criteria for the review were the following: 1) only published empirical and peer-reviewed studies; 2) studies published between 2002 and April 2022; 3) research undertaken in a High-Income Country; 4) studies involving adult research participants (18 years or above); 5) studies directly related to cancer early detection research; 6) studies involving participants who have not yet been diagnosed with cancer; 7) research that is not primarily therapy-focused; 8) articles aiming to enhance the recruitment and participation of underserved groups; 9) studies that implement and intervention to improve recruitment or participation in cancer studies and quantitatively/qualitatively evaluate its effectiveness; and 10) articles published in English. The search yielded 1,061 results on PubMed and 190 results on PsycINFO, whose titles were all scrutinised to filter out irrelevant papers. The abstracts of all remaining studies were read to select those that may fit the inclusion criteria. Figure 1 shows a flow chart detailing manuscript inclusion. Two investigators determined manuscripts' eligibility independently: one author (FB) screened and read all identified papers, and another (MR) independently screened a 25% sample of the 1,251 identified studies. Given that the agreement on inclusion and exclusion was satisfactory, FB screened the rest of the papers alone. This process generated a sample of 33 articles, to which five more articles found in references of screened documents were added. This led to a final sample of 38 papers. Figure 1 presents the flow chart describing the selection process. 2.2 Analysis An iterative process created a standardised method for extracting information from the eligible papers. We identified frequencies and means, where possible, and coded essential and detailed study characteristics in Microsoft Excel. In addition to the basic information of the article (title, authors, date), data was retrieved on the targeted population, geographic location of participants, barriers to research participation identified, cancer type focused on, sample size, and intervention(s) implemented, among others. Retrieved manuscripts were then analysed to identify themes and to synthesise tested interventions to improve the participation of groups often underrepresented in cancer early detection research. The quality of the included studies was also assessed using CASP guidelines( 26 ), which included attention to potential risk of bias. 3 RESULTS 3 RESULTS 3.1 Characteristics of included articles Table 1 presents the thirty-eight included manuscripts published between 2004 and 2022, including their approaches, identified barriers to participation, social group they focused on, type of cancer (if any), evaluation methods and risk of bias. Due to the inclusion criteria of the study, the final selection of studies was overwhelmingly carried out in the United States, except for one study in the UK ( 27 ). In addition, studies often focused on similar minoritised groups: African American( 10 , 27 – 51 ) and Latinx or Hispanics ( 30 , 35 , 36 , 43 , 48 , 49 , 52 – 56 ). However, category assignment was not exclusive, as some studies usually included multiple underrepresented groups simultaneously in their intervention. Those studies that sought participation in research on specific cancer types predominantly focused on breast ( 10 , 28 , 32 , 45 – 47 , 50 , 52 – 54 , 57 – 59 ), colorectal ( 31 , 33 , 35 , 41 , 44 , 48 , 57 , 59 ), prostate ( 27 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 46 ) and lung ( 33 , 36 , 41 ) cancers, sometimes in combination. However, no cancer type was specified in many cases, or the study could encompass multiple cancers. This was the case of studies focusing on enhancing diversity in biospecimen collection ( 40 , 43 , 49 , 60 ). The number of participants in the selected manuscripts that reported this number ranged from 17 to 154,934 per study. Yet, not all articles reflect the total number of enrolled participants: in some reports, these participants were divided over different phases of the project, whereas in other manuscripts that analyse several distinct studies, the participants are divided between those studies. Of note, there were two cases of overlap between the included manuscripts. Greiner and colleagues ( 35 ) analysed multiple research projects, including a study described in a dedicated separate manuscript first published by Friedman and colleagues ( 34 ). To avoid duplication in our analysis, we include Greiner’s study only when it focuses on the remaining four studies not accounted for in ( 14 ) and refer to Friedman and colleagues’ study otherwise. Moreover, Sheppard and colleagues’ report ( 59 ) describes complementary details about recruitment strategies and results to those included in Kreling and colleagues’ ( 53 ) manuscript. We include both manuscripts in this case: Kreling and colleagues ( 16 ) account for and measure the effectiveness of the broader research infrastructure they have put in place to serve the Latinx population in their catchment area. At the same time, Friedman’s work provides a narrower descriptive report of recruitment methods utilised in the research coalition. In the following pages, we narratively describe the barriers to participation identified in retrieved articles, to then unpack the interventions that were tested as part of research teams’ efforts to improve participation of underserved groups. We divide those approaches in: rethinking recruitment locations and partnerships with local communities; designing educational interventions and including peer-educators; combining research with community needs; increasing cultural competence of research teams; and overcoming practical barriers in study design. 3.2 Barriers to cancer ED research participation Each included study identified barriers to participation for underrepresented groups based on original research or existing literature. These identified barriers informed the rationale behind the intervention to increase research participation. Table 2 shows the frequency of the various obstacles identified in the sampled studies, with some studies identifying multiple barriers for the selected population. Table 2 – Barriers to research participation identified in included studies. Identified barriers to research participation Frequency (n) Mistrust 21 Lack of knowledge 14 Lack of trial awareness 12 Geographic accessibility 8 Lack of cultural competency in research/recruitment 7 Financial burden of participation 4 Time burden of participation 4 Fear of research procedures 4 Concerns about confidentiality/privacy 4 Stigma/misconceptions about participating in research 4 Group not approached enough for research 3 Practical barriers (general) 3 Uninsured/underinsured 2 Fear of uncovering health problems 2 Discrimination 2 Language barriers 2 Limited access to health services 2 Co-morbidities 1 Mistrust, the most cited barrier to cancer ED research participation among underrepresented groups, could refer to distrust of both healthcare and biomedical research ( 27 , 29 – 31 , 33 , 34 , 39 , 46 , 47 , 51 , 58 , 61 ). Mistrust in healthcare and biomedical research can stem from historical wrongdoings, such as the infamous and widely cited Tuskegee Syphilis Study ( 62 ), as well as ongoing experiences of exclusion and discrimination in healthcare settings ( 51 ). Mistrust was coded separately from concerns about confidentiality, such as data breaches or information being passed on ( 29 , 43 , 60 , 61 ), or privacy issues ( 29 , 60 ), and fear of the clinical procedures one might undergo as part of cancer ED research, such as venipuncture or x-rays ( 28 , 29 , 40 , 49 , 60 ). Perceived lack of knowledge of cancer, cancer early detection, and cancer ED research was also a commonly cited reason for nonparticipation ( 28 , 30 , 34 , 35 , 38 , 41 , 46 , 49 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 63 , 64 ), as well as a lack of awareness that there are cancer ED trials that healthy people can sign up for ( 28 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 43 , 48 , 52 , 55 , 64 ). While these barriers were often framed as a problem within the underrepresented community, we know that they can also be interpreted as a failure by research institutions to reach these groups, if not a failure of wider society to teach everyone basic knowledge about cancer and cancer research ( 55 , 65 )—a much smaller number of studies ( 32 , 35 , 43 , 47 , 54 ), placing the problem on the institutional side of the equation. 3.3 Approaches to improve participation of underserved groups in cancer ED research The included papers displayed a high level of heterogeneity and often combined different recruitment and participatory strategies. Therefore, the following highlighted strategies should not be interpreted as distinct, singular solutions but rather as tools that can be employed in various combinations to improve the participation of underserved groups in cancer ED research. 3.3.1 Recruitment locations and partnerships With mistrust in clinical research and healthcare being one of the critical barriers to research participation, solutions for recruiting and involving people from minoritised groups in cancer ED research often focused on engaging potential participants in settings that inspire trust. This includes spaces with trusted ‘gatekeepers’: places of worship, healthcare centres, and barbershops. To approach people there for research participation, it thus uses ‘trust by proxy’, where the environment and people associated with it facilitate trust-building between research teams and potential participants. Church A remarkably high volume of studies predominantly chosen to reach Black participants focused on establishing partnerships with places of worship: churches ( 28 , 29 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 53 , 60 ) or, in one case, temples ( 57 ). Churches frequented by a particular minoritised group were approached by researchers and asked to either allow recruitment via the church’s communication channels or to set up a more comprehensive (community-based) programme combining long-term research with other activities (see section 3.3.3 ). A successful example is the study by McNeill and colleagues ( 42 ), who developed a partnership with three African American churches in Houston, one of them with as many as 15,000 members, for a large cohort study. The research team spent one year building a trusting relationship with the churches. In addition to these dialogues, research teams attended worship programmes, responded to requests for talks on cancer control, and guided church members to local screening services. The trusting, reciprocal relationship between the research team and the churches led to an overwhelmingly positive response to the recruitment efforts. Similarly, Slade and colleagues ( 46 ) developed a trusting relationship with the leadership of participating churches, who then helped researchers plan research that limited barriers to participation, for example, by scheduling events at the church around activities that would already draw people to church. Barbershops and salons Five studies used barbershops and beauty salons to reach potential participants from underserved groups for cancer ED research participation ( 31 , 35 , 39 , 44 , 45 ). Since barbershops and salons are often gender-segregated, they facilitate reaching people from a particular gender and provide an environment where a (sex-specific) cancer can be discussed without the presence of the other sex. In addition, Jones, Steeves, and Williams ( 39 ) note that barbershops have historically been one of the few places where ‘African American men, regardless of their education, socioeconomic status, or occupation, could congregate and voice their opinions about various topics’. Therefore, the barbershop is a location where conversations about cancer, which will affect many men in their lifetime, and research participation can be introduced. Healthcare centres Ten studies chose clinical settings as one of the recruitment sites ( 32 , 35 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 48 , 51 – 53 , 57 ). This strategy could be a letter or message from a physician ( 48 , 57 ), multiple callbacks from the clinic ( 32 ), or face-to-face recruitment at either a community-based or specialist clinic ( 12 , 14 , 17 , 32 , 34 – 35 , 37 ). Tabriz and colleagues ( 48 ) attempted to recruit participants through an online patient portal, which would mitigate human bias in trial invitations. Still, they found that this recruitment method led to less ethnically diverse study samples as Black and Asian primary care patients were less likely than White patients to read the portal message, opening the attached link in the message, and consenting to participate in the trial. Similarly, in a study by Wang and colleagues ( 29 ), a bilingual, signed physician’s letter sent to Chinese Americans saw an enrolment rate of 32% on average, but this enrolment strategy enrolled comparatively fewer recent immigrants and uninsured Chinese Americans than community-based approaches. These findings illustrate that this recruitment approach risks excluding groups with less trust in healthcare institutions. 3.3.2 Designing Educational Interventions and Including Peer-Educators Since lack of knowledge about cancer ED and cancer ED research was identified as a significant barrier to research participation, interventions promoting education and awareness were often included as part of recruitment strategies. Fourteen studies organised educational sessions to counter stigma, stereotypes and false information about cancer research and associated data-collection procedures ( 10 , 28 , 29 , 34 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 47 , 49 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 64 ), hypothesising that increasing the knowledge about cancer, early detection, and cancer ED research in communities would lead to higher participation rates. Smith and colleagues ( 47 ) found that educational workshops followed by question-and-answer sessions were the most successful recruitment strategy, the latter being essential to give participants space to get their questions answered instead of being passive recipients of information. Another practical approach among these studies was to ask those present at the educational session to participate in the data collection immediately afterwards. However, this type of intervention was only feasible when participants were asked to either sign up to study, donate a biospecimen sample, or complete another brief test or task ( 10 , 28 , 40 , 43 , 56 ). Four studies designed interventions through culturally tailored videos to raise awareness of biobanking and cancer screening research projects ( 27 , 30 , 56 , 60 ). Peer Educators Seven papers from the selected studies recruited and trained peer educators from the target community to disseminate information about cancer (ED) and research and recruit potential study participants. Peer educators, described by various terms such as ‘ Promotores de Salud ’ ( 54 , 55 ), ‘community health educators’ ( 30 , 64 ) or ‘local champions’ ( 61 ), were chosen to disseminate information in a particular community because they are more likely to be considered a trusted source than a research team of ‘outsiders’, and because they are more likely to understand cultural sensitivities and appropriate manners of communication. Therefore, recruiting peer educators not only addresses lacunae in terms of knowledge of cancer, early detection, and research but also considers the lack of trust in biomedical research and healthcare professionals, as well as the importance of cultural appropriateness. In addition, peer educators can reach community members through their existing networks, which means they can get more isolated individuals ( 54 ). Involving peer educators in study design and implementation also often seemed coupled with a desire to alter power dynamics between research teams and communities involved in cancer ED research. In contrast with one-off recruitment strategies, peer educators can be part of a long-term relationship between research teams and their communities and become essential actors in the bidirectional communication between the two sides. Moreover, training peer educators (e.g., in presentation skills, leadership skills, health promotion and recruitment strategies) and investing in their development can be part of an effort to ‘give back’ to the researched community and to make the relationship between researchers and communities mutually beneficial. The promotoras participating in the study by Larkey and colleagues ( 54 ) developed skills and obtained experiences that led to further opportunities for career advancement. 3.3.3 Combining research with community needs People approached for cancer ED research may not see cancer ED research as a priority among all other causes and activities that require their time and attention. Moreover, participation in research activities can be an unappealing prospect. Therefore, seven studies in the sample combined research activities with community needs to make participation more appealing and to provide essential information to communities that could benefit from this. As a result, incorporating services that address community needs can render the researcher-participant relationship less extractive and contribute to a trusting relationship between the research team and research participants from marginalised communities. Screening service and research participation Three studies invited research participants by bringing screening services into the communities researchers hoped to recruit from ( 10 , 28 , 52 ). For example, McElfish and colleagues ( 52 ) recruited rural, medically underserved women in Arkansas (USA) for their breast cancer study using a mobile mammography unit (MammoVan). The unit provided breast cancer screening to women without a history of breast cancer free of charge, after which the women were asked to participate in the study, which involved an additional survey and saliva sample. The MammoVan recruitment strategy led to more rural and lower-educated participants ( 52 ). In the other two studies, potential research participants were offered several tests to collect health data, after which they were asked to donate these samples for research purposes. ( 10 , 28 ) This approach successfully reached underrepresented groups in cancer ED research in all three studies, but two things must be noted. Firstly, this method only has added value in areas where access to screening and other health services is insufficient: in places where potential research participants have easy access to cancer screening services and other health tests, this approach would have little added value for communities that researchers hope to recruit from. Secondly, the types of procedures offered to and asked from potential participants influence the likelihood of participation: Yeary and colleagues found that research activities with a higher participant burden, such as mammography and blood tests, saw much lower participation rates than simple procedures, such as surveys and anthropometric measurements, even when the indicated intent to participate was equally high or higher ( 10 ). Educational needs and research participation Rather than offering insight into personal health, four studies ( 41 , 42 , 46 , 50 ) combined research recruitment with meeting the educational needs of a particular group or community. Educating about health topics can increase intent to participate in research ( 60 ), but offering educational sessions about various issues can also be part of building trust between researchers and participants and an act of service to a participating community. This is illustrated by a study conducted by Langford and colleagues ( 41 ), for which the research team organised breakfasts for African American men. In addition to talks about prostate cancer and cancer research, the team solicited ideas from men to address topics they wanted to learn about. As a result, some breakfast talks covered seemingly unrelated themes, such as self-motivation and estate planning, demonstrating the researchers’ recognition of the broad way in which men define health. By inviting various speakers, from NFL players to urologists, to the breakfast programme, the research team offered their resources to benefit the community. 3.3.4 Increasing cultural competence of research team The cultural competence of research teams and outreach materials was an overarching and often-cited theme in the selected studies. However, in six studies ( 29 , 42 , 50 , 53 , 57 , 59 ), increasing the cultural competence, or cultural humility ( 66 ) of the research and recruitment staff, was a key strategy. In all cases, manuscripts mentioned having a diverse team that included members of the community the study sought to engage. In addition, some research teams were explicitly trained in cultural competence. For example, Wallington and colleagues ( 50 ) employed a highly diverse research and recruitment team, who were all trained in core practices of cultural competence, “acquiring and institutionalising cultural knowledge” ( 50 ). While the effects of diverse research teams and cultural competence training are challenging to quantify, results seemed optimistic: Wallington and colleagues reported that the culturally competent, community-based strategies led to a 62% increase in the enrolment of black participants in the study compared to previous recruitment tactics ( 38 ). 3.3.5 Overcoming practical barriers in study design Sixteen studies mentioned practical barriers to research participation for potential participants ( 10 , 27 , 33 , 34 , 39 , 42 , 44 , 48 , 50 , 52 – 54 , 57 , 58 , 61 , 64 , 67 ). These barriers include geographic accessibility, that is, the location where research was being conducted were far or difficult to reach ( 34 , 39 , 44 , 50 , 52 , 58 ), or participants had no access to the right transportation ( 33 , 39 , 54 , 58 ); and the time, duration, or timing of trials ( 31 , 54 , 58 , 61 ), language barriers ( 57 , 64 ), among other constraints. These practical barriers can be felt disproportionally by ethnic minority populations because they often have a lower socioeconomic status compared to their White counterparts ( 68 ). For issues related to the geographic accessibility of the research location, different solutions were offered, which focused either on bringing the research site closer to potential participants or facilitating transportation. Wallington and colleagues ( 38 ) moved the site from where research and outreach were being conducted to two community-based offices in the medically underserved neighbourhoods where they hoped to recruit for the study. The locations were picked with input from two community advisory boards and were both well-connected to bus and metro lines, as well as being within walking distance for many study participants. To facilitate transportation to the research site, a solution offered by one study was to pay for transportation expenses ( 27 , 30 , 56 , 60 ) while colleagues organised transportation to the churches that functioned as project sites in their most successful recruitment arm ( 33 ). 4 DISCUSSION This scoping literature review has highlighted several ways to include groups often underrepresented in cancer ED research. It draws on studies published between 2002 and April 2022 in anglophone countries – primarily the USA, that have empirically tested interventions to enhance participant diversity. This review demonstrates that in-person interactions, whether by the research team or designated (peer) recruiters, are important in engaging participants from minoritised groups ( 33 , 44 , 67 ). The importance of face-to-face interactions may be linked to building trust: mechanisms include getting to know the research team in person and having a two-way dialogue to address particular reservations of potential research participants ( 69 , 70 ). Gren and colleagues ( 27 ) found that for the recruitment of minoritised populations, in-person ‘community outreach’ (e.g., recruitment in churches, seminars, and health fairs) was an important addition to direct mail communication, as direct mail alone failed to convince people from minoritised groups to participate in research. Existing literature suggests several locations where such face-to-face interactions could occur, as well as forms of interaction (such as educational workshops and mobile screening services) and aspects to consider when communicating with potential research participants (e.g., culturally tailored- messages). Another valuable insight from this review is the importance of developing study protocols and recruitment strategies in collaboration with people from the communities researchers hope to recruit from. The engagement strategies discussed in this review were virtually all developed with at least some input from researchers, participants, or other advisors who belong to an underrepresented group. Some studies chose community-based participatory approaches and developed protocols and outreach strategies through collaboration or co-creation with individuals or organisations representing minoritised groups ( 27 , 44 , 50 ). These approaches communicate respect for and attention to minoritised groups researchers want to engage in cancer ED research; they have also been shown to increase statistically positive outcomes in a recent systematic review ( 71 ). This review also documents that combinations of strategies for involving participants from underrepresented groups are necessary. Each recruitment and engagement strategy successfully reaches some groups but excludes others. For example, Sadler and colleagues ( 45 ) note that the Black women they recruited through the cosmetologist’s salons are women who can afford such services. Similarly, Leach, Schoenberg, and Hatcher ( 58 ) found that, though they conducted research in a rural area characterised by low education levels and high breast cancer mortality, the women they got in touch with through outreach efforts tended to enjoy a higher socioeconomic status and were up to date on breast cancer screening. In other words, even when successful overall, strategies to invite underrepresented groups to participate in cancer ED research tend to exclude specific marginalised subgroups. This suggests that various engagement and recruitment strategies should be combined to reach a wide range of potential participants, and researchers should pay careful attention to their study designs to address the concerns of these (sub)groups. Again, community-based-participatory approaches can help research teams identify these barriers accurately. This scoping review documents a plethora of barriers and issues in cancer ED research and biomedical research more generally, experienced particularly by members of minoritised groups. These include a lack of trust in researchers, a lack of medical literacy, and insufficient cultural competence in research staff. Although we offer tools to address some of these issues and barriers within a single study or project scope, addressing these issues requires a long-term, collective effort from research institutions and healthcare organisations more generality. Together, these efforts contribute to a more significant shift in biomedical research culture that (re)builds trust between researchers and potential research participants, especially those from minoritised backgrounds. To build trust, relationships between researchers and research participants need to change from appearing extractive to feeling mutually beneficial and collaborative ( 8 ). The engagement of minoritised groups in research and inclusive study designs are just one part of this process; increased education and career opportunities in cancer research for people from minoritised backgrounds ( 72 , 73 ), input from minoritised groups at the policy level, and improved ethnicity coding in healthcare ( 74 ) are other essential elements. This targeted scoping review has limitations that need to be considered. The searches in PubMed and PsycINFO were executed exclusively in English. While many of the manuscripts discussed in this review have tested interventions that could be applied in a variety of contexts and countries, they are based on healthcare systems, socio-economic conditions, and racialised societal relations that may be unique to their own countries, which in turn affect the perceived barriers to cancer ED research. In addition, the search terms used for this review leave out studies that do not mention recruitment strategies in their title or abstract. Therefore, we may have missed publications for which recruitment strategies are not a focus of the publication, but which are nonetheless described and evaluated in the body of the text. Finally, this review only includes those studies that have tested or qualitatively evaluated interventions to increase participation or engagement of underserved groups, which means the timescale of these studies is limited: projects that aim to address the historical mistrust of some groups towards cancer research and foster a culture of trust between researchers and research subjects are more challenging to evaluate since they take much longer to bear fruit ( 75 ). Future trials may be necessary to test specific interventions to ascertain their effectiveness in engaging underrepresented groups compared to ‘traditional’ or known recruitment and engagement strategies. Importantly, no intervention will work for all, so evaluations will have to pay careful attention to the particularities of each underrepresented group ( 76 ). In addition, future studies are needed to test the potential for contemporary communications methods to recruit participants from underrepresented groups into cancer ED research. Tested approaches using direct mail and radio commercials may be irrelevant in many societies today, whereas various social media platforms have shown some promise to reach potential cancer ED research participants ( 77 ). Lastly, this review focused on Black and Latinx groups, whereas other (ethnic) minorities received less attention, such as sexual minorities and people with disabilities or co-morbidities. Further developing and standardising recruitment strategies may not lead to the inclusion of all societal groups in cancer ED research, as every strategy has its own blind spot. Future research could focus on more neglected groups. These efforts will continue enhancing the diversity of participant research cohorts and contribute to a general shift in research culture and the relationships between researchers and participants. 5 CONCLUSION This scoping literature review has highlighted empirically tested tools that research teams can employ to improve participation rates of groups often underrepresented in cancer ED research. Combinations of these methods can help overcome the perceived barriers to participation in cancer research that mainly affect people without a cancer diagnosis from these minoritised groups. Not only will these methods lead to more representative cancer ED studies that benefit all of society; the highlighted approaches also contribute to a more significant shift in research culture towards less extractive and more trusting relationships between researchers and the public. Declarations Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate: • Non-applicable Consent for publication: • Non-applicable Competing interests: • The authors declare that they have no competing interests Funding: This work was supported by the International Alliance for Cancer Early Detection (ACED), an alliance between Cancer Research UK [EICEDAAP\100011], the Canary Center at Stanford University, the University of Cambridge, OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, University College London and the University of Manchester. Ignacia Arteaga’s work was also supported by the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Aging grant DP1AG069809 (Dohan). This content is solely the authors' responsibility and does not necessarily represent the official views of ACED or the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Aging. Author Contribution FB completed most of the review and wrote the first draft of the article. MR supported the article selection process included in the review. NP and IA jointly obtained the funding for this project and supervised the work leading to this scoping literature review. NP had essential input over the design and methodology of this review. IA contributed to the analysis of the review and revised the manuscript for publication. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Data Availability Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files References Crosby D, Lyons N, Greenwood E, Harrison S, Hiom S, Moffat J, et al. A roadmap for the early detection and diagnosis of cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(11):1397–9. Lyons N, Crosby D, Dixon R, Greenwood E, Harrison S, Hiom S et al. Early Detection and Diagnosis of Cancer a Roadmap for the Future [Internet]. London: Cancer Research UK; 2020 [cited 2024 Aug 27]. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/early_detection_diagnosis_of_cancer_roadmap.pdf National Cancer Institute [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Aug 27]. NCI Early Detection Research Network. https://edrn.nci.nih.gov eatris.eu [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Aug 27]. Early Cancer Detection Europe. https://eatris.eu/projects/early-cancer-detection-europe-ecade/ Aldrighetti CM, Niemierko A, Van Allen E, Willers H, Kamran SC. Racial and Ethnic Disparities Among Participants in Precision Oncology Clinical Studies. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(11):e2133205. Witham MD, Anderson E, Carroll C, Dark PM, Down K, Hall AS, et al. Developing a roadmap to improve trial delivery for under-served groups: results from a UK multi-stakeholder process. Trials. 2020;21(1):694. Farooqi A, Jutlla K, Raghavan R, Wilson A, Uddin MS, Akroyd C, et al. Developing a toolkit for increasing the participation of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in health and social care research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022;22(1):17. Brockhoven F, Raphael M, Currier J, Jäderholm C, Mody P, Shannon J, et al. REPRESENT recommendations: improving inclusion and trust in cancer early detection research. Br J Cancer. 2023;129(8):1195–208. Currier J, Arteaga I, Turner-Uaandja H, Starling B, Pashayan N, Jäderholm C, et al. Represent: A community engagement roadmap to improve participant representation in cancer early detection research: An Oregon case study. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1110543. Yeary KHcheon, Moore K, Turner P, Dawson J, Heo L, Greene S. Feasibility Test of a Community-Relevant Intervention Designed to Promote African American Participation in Translational, Breast Cancer Disparities Research: Know About Health Options for Women (Know HOW). J Canc Educ. 2018;33(1):29–36. Srivastava S, Koay EJ, Borowsky AD, De Marzo AM, Ghosh S, Wagner PD, et al. Cancer overdiagnosis: a biological challenge and clinical dilemma. Nat Rev Cancer. 2019;19(6):349–58. Housten AJ, Lowenstein LM, Hoffman A, Jacobs LE, Zirari Z, Hoover DS, et al. A Review of the Presentation of Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids. MDM Policy Pract. 2019;4(2):238146831988144. Hersch J, Jansen J, Barratt A, Irwig L, Houssami N, Howard K, et al. Women’s views on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: a qualitative study. BMJ. 2013;346(jan23 1):f158–158. The Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening, Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, Dewar JA, Thompson SG, et al. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review: A report jointly commissioned by Cancer Research UK and the Department of Health (England) October 2012. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(11):2205–40. Arring NM, Aduse-Poku L, Jiagge E, Saylor K, White-Perkins D, Israel B, et al. A Scoping Review of Strategies to Increase Black Enrollment and Retention in Cancer Clinical Trials. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18(9):614–32. Sedrak MS, Freedman RA, Cohen HJ, Muss HB, Jatoi A, Klepin HD, et al. Older adult participation in cancer clinical trials: A systematic review of barriers and interventions. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(1):78–92. Milrod CJ, Mann M, Blevins F, Hughes D, Patel P, Li KY, et al. Underrepresentation of Black participants and adverse events in clinical trials of lenalidomide for myeloma. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol. 2022;172:103644. Nouvini R, Parker PA, Malling CD, Godwin K, Costas-Muñiz R. Interventions to increase racial and ethnic minority accrual into cancer clinical trials: A systematic review. Cancer. 2022;128(21):3860–9. Nolan TS, Bell AM, Chan Y, Leak Bryant A, Bissram JS, Hirschey R. Use of Video Education Interventions to Increase Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review. Worldviews Ev Based Nurs. 2021;18(5):302–9. Hamel LM, Penner LA, Albrecht TL, Heath E, Gwede CK, Eggly S. Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrollment in Racial and Ethnic Minority Patients with Cancer. Cancer Control. 2016;23(4):327–37. Rivers D, August EM, Sehovic I, Lee Green B, Quinn GP. A systematic review of the factors influencing African Americans’ participation in cancer clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;35(2):13–32. Heller C, Balls-Berry JE, Nery JD, Erwin PJ, Littleton D, Kim M, et al. Strategies addressing barriers to clinical trial enrollment of underrepresented populations: A systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;39(2):169–82. Julian McFarlane S, Occa A, Peng W, Awonuga O, Morgan SE. Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) to Enhance Participation of Racial/Ethnic Minorities in Clinical Trials: A 10-Year Systematic Review. Health Commun. 2022;37(9):1075–92. Bonevski B, Randell M, Paul C, Chapman K, Twyman L, Bryant J, et al. Reaching the hard-to-reach: a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):42. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP Systematic Review Checklist [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2024 Aug 27]. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/systematic-review-checklist/ Hainsworth E, McGrowder E, McHugh J, Bancroft E, Mahabir S, Webber W, et al. How can we recruit more men of African or African-Caribbean ancestry into our research? Co-creating a video to raise awareness of prostate cancer risk and the PROFILE study. Res Involv Engagem. 2022;8(1):14. Colon-Otero G, Albertie M, Lesperance M, Weis JA, Coles A, Smith N, et al. A Pilot Program in Collaboration with African American Churches Successfully Increases Awareness of the Importance of Cancer Research and Participation in Cancer Translational Research Studies among African Americans. J Canc Educ. 2012;27(2):294–8. Cudjoe J, Turkson-Ocran RA, Ezeigwe AK, Commodore-Mensah Y, Nkimbeng M, Han HR. Recruiting African Immigrant Women for Community-Based Cancer Prevention Studies: Lessons Learned from the AfroPap Study. J Community Health. 2019;44(5):1019–26. Cunningham-Erves J, Mayo-Gamble TL, Hull PC, Lu T, Barajas C, McAfee CR, et al. A pilot study of a culturally-appropriate, educational intervention to increase participation in cancer clinical trials among African Americans and Latinos. Cancer Causes Control. 2021;32(9):953–63. Davis SN, Govindaraju S, Jackson B, Williams KR, Christy SM, Vadaparampil ST, et al. Recruitment Techniques and Strategies in a Community-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Study of Men and Women of African Ancestry. Nurs Res. 2018;67(3):212–21. Fair AM, Wujcik D, Lin JMS, Egan KM, Grau AM, Zheng W. Timing is everything: Methodologic issues locating and recruiting medically underserved women for abnormal mammography follow-up research. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008;29(4):537–46. Ford ME, Havstad SL, Davis SD. A randomized trial of recruitment methods for older African American men in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. Clin Trails. 2004;1(4):343–51. Friedman DB, Johnson KM, Owens OL, Thomas TL, Dawkins DS, Gansauer L, et al. Developing Partnerships and Recruiting Dyads for a Prostate Cancer Informed Decision Making Program: Lessons Learned From a Community-Academic-Clinical Team. J Canc Educ. 2012;27(2):243–9. Greiner KA, Friedman DB, Adams SA, Gwede CK, Cupertino P, Engelman KK, et al. Effective Recruitment Strategies and Community-Based Participatory Research: Community Networks Program Centers’ Recruitment in Cancer Prevention Studies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23(3):416–23. Gren L, Broski K, Childs J, Cordes J, Engelhard D, Gahagan B, et al. Recruitment methods employed in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial. Clin Trails. 2009;6(1):52–9. Halbert CH, Brewster K, Collier A, Smith C, Kessler L, Weathers B, et al. Recruiting African American Women to Participate in Hereditary Breast Cancer Research. JCO. 2005;23(31):7967–73. Jackson DD, Owens OL, Friedman DB, Hebert JR. An Intergenerational Approach to Prostate Cancer Education: Findings from a Pilot Project in the Southeastern USA. J Canc Educ. 2014;29(4):649–56. Jones RA, Steeves R, Williams I. Strategies for Recruiting African American Men Into Prostate Cancer Screening Studies. Nurs Res. 2009;58(6):452–6. Kiviniemi MT, Saad-Harfouche FG, Ciupak GL, Davis W, Moysich K, Hargrave NC, et al. Pilot Intervention Outcomes of an Educational Program for Biospecimen Research Participation. J Canc Educ. 2013;28(1):52–9. Langford AT, Griffith DM, Beasley DD, Braxton EID. A Cancer Center’s Approach to Engaging African American Men About Cancer: The Men’s Fellowship Breakfast, Southeastern Michigan, 2008–2014. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014;11:140187. McNeill LH, Reitzel LR, Escoto KH, Roberson CL, Nguyen N, Vidrine JI, et al. Engaging Black Churches to Address Cancer Health Disparities: Project CHURCH. Front Public Health. 2018;6:191. Rodriguez EM, Saad-Harfouche FG, Miller A, Mahoney MC, Ambrosone CB, Morrison CD, et al. Engaging diverse populations in biospecimen donation: results from the Hoy y Mañana study. J Community Genet. 2016;7(4):271–7. Rogers CR, Matthews P, Brooks E, Le Duc N, Washington C, McKoy A, et al. Barriers to and Facilitators of Recruitment of Adult African American Men for Colorectal Cancer Research: An Instrumental Exploratory Case Study. JCO Oncol Pract. 2021;17(5):e686–94. Sadler GR, Ko CM, Cohn JA, White M, Weldon Rnesha, Wu P. Breast cancer knowledge, attitudes, and screening behaviors among African American women: the Black cosmetologists promoting health program. BMC Public Health. 2007;7(1):57. Slade JL, Holt CL, Bowie J, Scheirer MA, Toussaint E, Saunders DR, et al. Recruitment of African American Churches to Participate in Cancer Early Detection Interventions: A Community Perspective. J Relig Health. 2018;57(2):751–61. Smith A, Vidal GA, Pritchard E, Blue R, Martin MY, Rice LJ, et al. Sistas Taking a Stand for Breast Cancer Research (STAR) Study: A Community-Based Participatory Genetic Research Study to Enhance Participation and Breast Cancer Equity among African American Women in Memphis, TN. IJERPH. 2018;15(12):2899. Tabriz AA, Fleming PJ, Shin Y, Resnicow K, Jones RM, Flocke SA, et al. Challenges and opportunities using online portals to recruit diverse patients to behavioral trials. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019;26(12):1637–44. Tham HM, Hohl S, Copeland W, Briant KJ, Márquez-Magaña L, Thompson B. Enhancing Biospecimen Knowledge Among Health Care Providers and Representatives From Community Organizations. Health Promot Pract. 2017;18(5):715–25. Wallington SF, Dash C, Sheppard VB, Goode TD, Oppong BA, Dodson EE, et al. Enrolling Minority and Underserved Populations in Cancer Clinical Research. Am J Prev Med. 2016;50(1):111–7. Webb Hooper M, Mitchell C, Marshall VJ, Cheatham C, Austin K, Sanders K, et al. Responding to healthcare distrust among underserved communities: Phase II. Psycho-oncology. 2022;31(1):3–8. McElfish PA, Su LJ, Lee JY, Runnells G, Henry-Tillman R, Kadlubar SA. Mobile Mammography Screening as an Opportunity to Increase Access of Rural Women to Breast Cancer Research Studies. Breast Cancer࿽(Auckl). 2019;13:117822341987629. Kreling BA, Cañar J, Catipon E, Goodman M, Pallesen N, Pomeroy J, et al. Latin American Cancer Research Coalition: Community primary care/academic partnership model for cancer control. Cancer. 2006;107(S8):2015–22. Larkey LK, Gonzalez JA, Mar LE, Glantz N. Latina recruitment for cancer prevention education via Community Based Participatory Research strategies. Contemp Clin Trials. 2009;30(1):47–54. Cupertino AP, Saint-Elin M, De Los Rios JB, Engelman KK, Greiner KA, Ellerbeck EF, et al. Empowering Promotores de Salud as Partners in Cancer Education and Research in Rural Southwest Kansas. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2015;42(1):15–22. McIntyre J, Jiménez J, Rivera YM, Sutton SK, Asencio G, Castro-Figueroa EM, et al. Comparison of Health Communication Channels for Reaching Hispanics About Biobanking: a Pilot Trial. J Canc Educ. 2018;33(4):833–41. Wang JHyu, Sheppard VB, Liang W, Ma GX, Maxwell AE. Recruiting Chinese Americans into cancer screening intervention trials: Strategies and outcomes. Clin Trails. 2014;11(2):167–77. Leach CR, Schoenberg NE, Hatcher J. Factors Associated With Participation in Cancer Prevention and Control Studies Among Rural Appalachian Women. Fam Community Health. 2011;34(2):119–25. Sheppard VB, Cox LS, Kanamori MJ, Cañar J, Rodríguez Y, Goodman M, et al. Brief report: If you build it, they will come: Methods for recruiting latinos into cancer research. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(5):444–7. Tan NS, Custodio H, LaBreche M, Fex CC, Tui’one May V, Pang JK, et al. Biospecimen Education Among Pacific Islanders in Southern California. J Canc Educ. 2019;34(4):658–65. Dean C, Fogleman AJ, Zahnd WE, Lipka AE, Malhi RS, Delfino KR, et al. Engaging rural communities in genetic research: challenges and opportunities. J Community Genet. 2017;8(3):209–19. Epstein S, Inclusion. The politics of difference in medical research. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press; 2008. Giri VN, Selvan P, Mohanty S, Lum R, Serrao S, Leader AE. Exploring Asian Indian views about cancer and participation in cancer research: an evaluation of a culturally tailored educational intervention. J Community Genet. 2020;11(2):193–203. Ma GX, Tan Y, Blakeney NC, Seals BF, Ma XS, Zhai S, et al. The Impact of a Community-Based Clinical Trial Educational Intervention among Underrepresented Chinese Americans. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23(3):424–32. Sarma EA, Rendle KA, Kobrin SC. Cancer symptom awareness in the US: Sociodemographic differences in a population-based survey of adults. Prev Med. 2020;132:106005. Lekas HM, Pahl K, Fuller Lewis C. Rethinking Cultural Competence: Shifting to Cultural Humility. Health Serv Insights. 2020;13:117863292097058. Davies E. ‘This has given me the peace of mind I needed’: ethnographic insights into Barrett’s oesophagus screening using the capsule sponge test. J Med Ethics. 2024;jme-2024-109928. Oyer RA, Hurley P, Boehmer L, Bruinooge SS, Levit K, Barrett N, et al. Increasing Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials: An American Society of Clinical Oncology and Association of Community Cancer Centers Joint Research Statement. JCO. 2022;40(19):2163–71. Bonner G, Williams S, Wilkie D, Hart A, Burnett G, Peacock G. Trust Building Recruitment Strategies for Researchers Conducting Studies in African American (AA) Churches: Lessons Learned. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2017;34(10):912–7. Ibrahim S, Sidani S. Strategies to Recruit Minority persons: A Systematic Review. J Immigr Minor Health. 2014;16(5):882–8. McFarlane JS, Occa A, Peng W, Awonuga O, Morgan SE. Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) to Enhance Participation of Racial/Ethnic Minorities in Clinical Trials: A 10-Year Systematic Review. Health Commun. 2022;37(9):1075–92. Ramirez AG, Gallion KJ, Perez A, Adeigbe RT, Munoz E, Pasick RJ. Éxito! Making an Impact in Training Latinos for Doctorates and Cancer Research. J Canc Educ. 2019;34(5):928–37. Mochona B, Lyon D, Offringa IA, Redda KK, Reams RR, Odedina F, et al. Developing a Novel Framework for an Undergraduate Cancer Research Education and Engagement Program for Underrepresented Minority Students: the Florida-California CaRE2 Research Education Core (REC) Training Program. J Canc Educ. 2021;36(5):914–9. Routen A, Akbari A, Banerjee A, Katikireddi SV, Mathur R, McKee M, et al. Strategies to record and use ethnicity information in routine health data. Nat Med. 2022;28(7):1338–42. Russell J, Fudge N, Greenhalgh T. The impact of public involvement in health research: what are we measuring? Why are we measuring it? Should we stop measuring it? Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6(1):63. Farooqi A, Jutlla K, Raghavan R, Wilson A, Uddin MS, Akroyd C, et al. Developing a toolkit for increasing the participation of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in health and social care research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022;22(1):17. Zhang Z, Shafer A, Johnson-Camacho K, Adey A, Anur P, Brown KA, et al. Novel recruitment approaches and operational results for a statewide population Cohort for cancer research: The Healthy Oregon Project. J Clin Trans Sci. 2024;8(1):e32. Table 1 Table 1 is available in the supplementary file section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files 08.29.24Scopinglitreviewfinaltable.xlsx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5005757","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":523560078,"identity":"80be1dd2-5d87-48cd-9139-689dbb8d4883","order_by":0,"name":"Frederike Brockhoven","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Oxford","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Frederike","middleName":"","lastName":"Brockhoven","suffix":""},{"id":523560080,"identity":"255e927a-edb3-4a2e-bd20-7a7ae6a9baa2","order_by":1,"name":"Maya Raphael","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"NIHR Bioresource, University of Cambridge","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Maya","middleName":"","lastName":"Raphael","suffix":""},{"id":523560082,"identity":"17b9cfd9-e35e-4cd3-8a21-f79ab186c1f4","order_by":2,"name":"Nora Pashayan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Cambridge","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nora","middleName":"","lastName":"Pashayan","suffix":""},{"id":523560084,"identity":"f51caf41-e771-4f4f-a144-b7a0ece0fdad","order_by":3,"name":"Ignacia Arteaga","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of California, San Francisco","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ignacia","middleName":"","lastName":"Arteaga","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-08-30 19:18:46","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5005757/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5005757/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":92660546,"identity":"ae4a8ccd-d392-4ced-9fa7-fd8cc59d4a07","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:47:20","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":67293,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure1scopinglitreview.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5005757/v1/dee8be68905a4bac486db9fb.docx"},{"id":92661080,"identity":"72d9dbda-b064-43f1-93b3-bf78f4d00329","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:55:21","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":252637,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"09.03.2024REPRESENTScopingReview.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5005757/v1/bdcb4174ca0beedd73c82366.docx"},{"id":92661075,"identity":"b68d1439-2ab0-4d12-98bf-3ee2128a5460","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:55:21","extension":"xlsx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":41380,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"08.29.24Scopinglitreviewfinaltable.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5005757/v1/d46d4d502dbd4d7a8df4e607.xlsx"},{"id":92661076,"identity":"80c97e62-9d5e-4995-b889-325af8e4757d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:55:21","extension":"json","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":7217,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"0c82836978fe4816922b04755dda37d3.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5005757/v1/361e613b4907f72c41d5f701.json"},{"id":92660556,"identity":"96c7511d-2b94-4ae4-86da-0c7a5b227eb7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:47:21","extension":"xml","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":177940,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"0c82836978fe4816922b04755dda37d31enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5005757/v1/f1098a04203111c53533993f.xml"},{"id":92660554,"identity":"269f4817-2596-4e2a-b662-0ecff1530c6a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:47:21","extension":"jpeg","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":924,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5005757/v1/b6f8f0ed0d5612e011289ed3.jpeg"},{"id":92661079,"identity":"cc1aab00-91fc-47ba-8fcc-ee1ce907df39","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:55:21","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":34178,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5005757/v1/5d87f999b9c598b502ec4c88.png"},{"id":92661567,"identity":"9941496f-e60e-48b7-b927-717da1920bac","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 15:03:21","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":388,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5005757/v1/dd5f494783071a7b7155d770.png"},{"id":92660549,"identity":"1b5a5a5a-9844-4258-878b-3f040cf2709d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:47:21","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":34178,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5005757/v1/0e8b3ee9c7bc9d2295af16a8.png"},{"id":92660558,"identity":"52341ede-102a-4fc8-9e22-269e86211421","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:47:21","extension":"xml","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":175582,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"0c82836978fe4816922b04755dda37d31structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5005757/v1/0f4e7812e5f3eab59d5a1119.xml"},{"id":92660557,"identity":"ad69dadc-674f-4ea1-be9a-f78b9689d0b5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:47:21","extension":"html","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":186455,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5005757/v1/e4edc04717794ada471fbce1.html"},{"id":92660545,"identity":"a07cb70d-9488-4cd6-bce7-9c0091d89a9d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:47:20","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":53239,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFlow chart of the review inclusion/exclusion process.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5005757/v1/5aa14434f2e8e4f87cb90441.jpeg"},{"id":92661566,"identity":"ef079427-3504-4479-b505-ff2c5b24ea7e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 15:03:21","extension":"jpeg","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":53239,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFlow chart of the review inclusion/exclusion process.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5005757/v1/79e48173350c15a85f5d6b9e.jpeg"},{"id":92662265,"identity":"3d486594-a5da-4aab-a77a-6ef88d491dbf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 15:11:21","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":944085,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5005757/v1/f2d6351e-e2de-42e7-90cd-056078be6f09.pdf"},{"id":92660547,"identity":"d06f4c35-b04b-48de-b359-4d9378191fcd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 14:47:21","extension":"xlsx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":41380,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"08.29.24Scopinglitreviewfinaltable.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5005757/v1/c488c0eabd311650a3b67fb0.xlsx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Increasing participation of underrepresented groups in cancer early detection research: a scoping review","fulltext":[{"header":"1 INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eEarly detection (ED) and cancer diagnosis are vital for improving the prospects of cancer patients. When cancers or pre-cancerous lesions are detected earlier, patients\u0026rsquo; chances of surviving their disease are dramatically higher(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Hence, cancer ED research has become a priority of cancer research in the United Kingdom(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), the United States(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e), and other countries(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, improvements in access to early-detection research on cancer are still urgently needed to ensure that new research on early-stage cancer detection benefits all groups in society(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). To achieve this, cancer ED studies must include participants from all walks of life. Still, similarly to many other health research fields, people from ethnic minorities and other underserved and minoritised groups are usually underrepresented in cancer ED studies(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR6\" citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere are unique aspects to cancer early detection research that may deter potential research participants and complicate efforts to involve people from underrepresented backgrounds (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e). Firstly, cancer ED research usually requires the participation of participants who are cancer free or asymptomatic, which thus requires \u0026lsquo;healthy\u0026rsquo; people to consider the possibility of developing cancer. Having to think about a potentially lethal disease can put people off participation, especially those who already struggle to access adequate healthcare. This makes participation in cancer ED research a different recruitment process from other cancer clinical trials, which can recruit cancer patients already being treated in hospitals who are aware of their condition. Secondly, cancer-free and symptomatic people may be deterred by the invasive participation procedures that cancer ED research might require (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e). Lastly, participating in cancer ED research can sometimes lead to the discovery of health problems, such as cancer or a higher risk of developing one. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of slow-growing or indolent cancers; and detection of early cancers for which a treatment has not yet proven effective are known risks (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR12 CR13\" citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e). Again, this potential \u0026lsquo;side effect\u0026rsquo; of cancer ED research participation is particularly problematic for those without adequate access to healthcare and insurance (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e) .\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese aspects of cancer ED research demonstrate the need for a scoping literature review about strategies to involve underrepresented groups in research in this particular field of cancer research. Although insights from systematic literature reviews and scoping reviews focusing on increasing participation of minoritised groups in cancer clinical trials (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR16 CR17 CR18 CR19 CR20\" citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e) or clinical trials for other conditions(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR23\" citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e) are beneficial, this scoping review seeks to map out only those tested interventions suitable for the involvement of underrepresented groups in the unique processes of cancer ED research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis review is part of a wider effort to develop recommendations for improving diversity and trust-building in cancer ED research. As part of \u0026lsquo;REPRESENT: A Community Engagement Roadmap to Improve Participant Representation in Cancer Research Early Detection\u0026rsquo;(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e), we conducted a targeted scoping review to identify the approaches that have been implemented to improve participation of minoritised groups in cancer ED research. The method of a targeted scoping review was chosen to map and analyse the wide range of interventions that have been tested, without excluding studies based on small sample sizes or heterogeneous evaluation methods(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e). This review identifies themes in the 38 included studies that aimed to recruit and involve participants from underserved groups in cancer ED research so that future studies may learn from or further test these varied strategies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 METHODS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Search strategy\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e The databases used for this systematic literature review, conducted in April 2022, were PubMed and PsycINFO. The question we sought to answer is: \u0026lsquo;What approaches have been implemented to increase participation of people without a cancer diagnosis from underrepresented groups in cancer early detection research?\u0026rsquo;. The search strategy consisted of four themes, each forming a set of related (MeSH) terms: research (e.g., clinical trial), underrepresented communities (e.g., underserved, minorit*, African American, Black, Latin*), participation (e.g., engagement, involvement, recruit*), and cancer (e.g., oncol*, lymphoma). The category of \u0026lsquo;underrepresented communities\u0026rsquo; included the highest number of terms to ensure a wide range of underserved groups were included in the search. These groups included various ethnic, indigenous, and linguistic minorities, gender and sexual minorities, people with physical disabilities and neurodiverse people, groups marginalised based on their geographic location or socio-economic status, and those often excluded based on their immigration status. Since there are also various terms to denote participation, each with a nuance that can differ between countries and research contexts, it was decided to include all terms that indicate some level of involvement in research. Search strategies and filters were modified for the corresponding search database.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInclusion criteria for the review were the following: 1) only published empirical and peer-reviewed studies; 2) studies published between 2002 and April 2022; 3) research undertaken in a High-Income Country; 4) studies involving adult research participants (18 years or above); 5) studies directly related to cancer early detection research; 6) studies involving participants who have \u003cem\u003enot\u003c/em\u003e yet been diagnosed with cancer; 7) research that is not primarily therapy-focused; 8) articles aiming to enhance the recruitment and participation of underserved groups; 9) studies that implement and intervention to improve recruitment or participation in cancer studies \u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e quantitatively/qualitatively evaluate its effectiveness; and 10) articles published in English.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe search yielded 1,061 results on PubMed and 190 results on PsycINFO, whose titles were all scrutinised to filter out irrelevant papers. The abstracts of all remaining studies were read to select those that may fit the inclusion criteria. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e shows a flow chart detailing manuscript inclusion. Two investigators determined manuscripts' eligibility independently: one author (FB) screened and read all identified papers, and another (MR) independently screened a 25% sample of the 1,251 identified studies. Given that the agreement on inclusion and exclusion was satisfactory, FB screened the rest of the papers alone. This process generated a sample of 33 articles, to which five more articles found in references of screened documents were added. This led to a final sample of 38 papers. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the flow chart describing the selection process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn iterative process created a standardised method for extracting information from the eligible papers. We identified frequencies and means, where possible, and coded essential and detailed study characteristics in Microsoft Excel. In addition to the basic information of the article (title, authors, date), data was retrieved on the targeted population, geographic location of participants, barriers to research participation identified, cancer type focused on, sample size, and intervention(s) implemented, among others. Retrieved manuscripts were then analysed to identify themes and to synthesise tested interventions to improve the participation of groups often underrepresented in cancer early detection research. The quality of the included studies was also assessed using CASP guidelines(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e), which included attention to potential risk of bias.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3 RESULTS","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"Heading\"\u003e3 RESULTS\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Characteristics of included articles\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;1\u003c/b\u003e presents the thirty-eight included manuscripts published between 2004 and 2022, including their approaches, identified barriers to participation, social group they focused on, type of cancer (if any), evaluation methods and risk of bias.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDue to the inclusion criteria of the study, the final selection of studies was overwhelmingly carried out in the United States, except for one study in the UK (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, studies often focused on similar minoritised groups: African American(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR28 CR29 CR30 CR31 CR32 CR33 CR34 CR35 CR36 CR37 CR38 CR39 CR40 CR41 CR42 CR43 CR44 CR45 CR46 CR47 CR48 CR49 CR50\" citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e) and Latinx or Hispanics (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR53 CR54 CR55\" citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e). However, category assignment was not exclusive, as some studies usually included multiple underrepresented groups simultaneously in their intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThose studies that sought participation in research on specific cancer types predominantly focused on breast (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR46\" citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR53\" citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR58\" citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e), colorectal (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e), prostate (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e) and lung (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e) cancers, sometimes in combination. However, no cancer type was specified in many cases, or the study could encompass multiple cancers. This was the case of studies focusing on enhancing diversity in biospecimen collection (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe number of participants in the selected manuscripts that reported this number ranged from 17 to 154,934 per study. Yet, not all articles reflect the total number of enrolled participants: in some reports, these participants were divided over different phases of the project, whereas in other manuscripts that analyse several distinct studies, the participants are divided between those studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOf note, there were two cases of overlap between the included manuscripts. Greiner and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e) analysed multiple research projects, including a study described in a dedicated separate manuscript first published by Friedman and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e). To avoid duplication in our analysis, we include Greiner\u0026rsquo;s study only when it focuses on the remaining four studies not accounted for in (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e) and refer to Friedman and colleagues\u0026rsquo; study otherwise. Moreover, Sheppard and colleagues\u0026rsquo; report (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e) describes complementary details about recruitment strategies and results to those included in Kreling and colleagues\u0026rsquo; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e) manuscript. We include both manuscripts in this case: Kreling and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e) account for and measure the effectiveness of the broader research infrastructure they have put in place to serve the Latinx population in their catchment area. At the same time, Friedman\u0026rsquo;s work provides a narrower descriptive report of recruitment methods utilised in the research coalition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the following pages, we narratively describe the barriers to participation identified in retrieved articles, to then unpack the interventions that were tested as part of research teams\u0026rsquo; efforts to improve participation of underserved groups. We divide those approaches in: rethinking recruitment locations and partnerships with local communities; designing educational interventions and including peer-educators; combining research with community needs; increasing cultural competence of research teams; and overcoming practical barriers in study design.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2 Barriers to cancer ED research participation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eEach included study identified barriers to participation for underrepresented groups based on original research or existing literature. These identified barriers informed the rationale behind the intervention to increase research participation. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows the frequency of the various obstacles identified in the sampled studies, with some studies identifying multiple barriers for the selected population.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash; Barriers to research participation identified in included studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIdentified barriers to research participation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrequency (n)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMistrust\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLack of knowledge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLack of trial awareness\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGeographic accessibility\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLack of cultural competency in research/recruitment\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinancial burden of participation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTime burden of participation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFear of research procedures\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConcerns about confidentiality/privacy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStigma/misconceptions about participating in research\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGroup not approached enough for research\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractical barriers (general)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUninsured/underinsured\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFear of uncovering health problems\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDiscrimination\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLanguage barriers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLimited access to health services\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCo-morbidities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMistrust, the most cited barrier to cancer ED research participation among underrepresented groups, could refer to distrust of both healthcare and biomedical research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR30\" citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e). Mistrust in healthcare and biomedical research can stem from historical wrongdoings, such as the infamous and widely cited Tuskegee Syphilis Study (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e), as well as ongoing experiences of exclusion and discrimination in healthcare settings (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e). Mistrust was coded separately from concerns about confidentiality, such as data breaches or information being passed on (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e), or privacy issues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e), and fear of the clinical procedures one might undergo as part of cancer ED research, such as venipuncture or x-rays (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived lack of knowledge of cancer, cancer early detection, and cancer ED research was also a commonly cited reason for nonparticipation (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e), as well as a lack of awareness that there are cancer ED trials that healthy people can sign up for (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e). While these barriers were often framed as a problem within the underrepresented community, we know that they can also be interpreted as a failure by research institutions to reach these groups, if not a failure of wider society to teach everyone basic knowledge about cancer and cancer research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;a much smaller number of studies (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e), placing the problem on the institutional side of the equation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3 Approaches to improve participation of underserved groups in cancer ED research\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe included papers displayed a high level of heterogeneity and often combined different recruitment and participatory strategies. Therefore, the following highlighted strategies should not be interpreted as distinct, singular solutions but rather as tools that can be employed in various combinations to improve the participation of underserved groups in cancer ED research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.1 Recruitment locations and partnerships\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWith mistrust in clinical research and healthcare being one of the critical barriers to research participation, solutions for recruiting and involving people from minoritised groups in cancer ED research often focused on engaging potential participants in settings that inspire trust. This includes spaces with trusted \u0026lsquo;gatekeepers\u0026rsquo;: places of worship, healthcare centres, and barbershops. To approach people there for research participation, it thus uses \u0026lsquo;trust by proxy\u0026rsquo;, where the environment and people associated with it facilitate trust-building between research teams and potential participants.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChurch\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA remarkably high volume of studies predominantly chosen to reach Black participants focused on establishing partnerships with places of worship: churches (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e) or, in one case, temples (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e). Churches frequented by a particular minoritised group were approached by researchers and asked to either allow recruitment via the church\u0026rsquo;s communication channels or to set up a more comprehensive (community-based) programme combining long-term research with other activities (see section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec11\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3.3.3\u003c/span\u003e). A successful example is the study by McNeill and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e), who developed a partnership with three African American churches in Houston, one of them with as many as 15,000 members, for a large cohort study. The research team spent one year building a trusting relationship with the churches. In addition to these dialogues, research teams attended worship programmes, responded to requests for talks on cancer control, and guided church members to local screening services. The trusting, reciprocal relationship between the research team and the churches led to an overwhelmingly positive response to the recruitment efforts. Similarly, Slade and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e) developed a trusting relationship with the leadership of participating churches, who then helped researchers plan research that limited barriers to participation, for example, by scheduling events at the church around activities that would already draw people to church.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBarbershops and salons\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFive studies used barbershops and beauty salons to reach potential participants from underserved groups for cancer ED research participation (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e). Since barbershops and salons are often gender-segregated, they facilitate reaching people from a particular gender and provide an environment where a (sex-specific) cancer can be discussed without the presence of the other sex. In addition, Jones, Steeves, and Williams (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e) note that barbershops have historically been one of the few places where \u0026lsquo;African American men, regardless of their education, socioeconomic status, or occupation, could congregate and voice their opinions about various topics\u0026rsquo;. Therefore, the barbershop is a location where conversations about cancer, which will affect many men in their lifetime, and research participation can be introduced.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHealthcare centres\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTen studies chose clinical settings as one of the recruitment sites (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR52\" citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e). This strategy could be a letter or message from a physician (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e), multiple callbacks from the clinic (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e), or face-to-face recruitment at either a community-based or specialist clinic (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e). Tabriz and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e) attempted to recruit participants through an online patient portal, which would mitigate human bias in trial invitations. Still, they found that this recruitment method led to less ethnically diverse study samples as Black and Asian primary care patients were less likely than White patients to read the portal message, opening the attached link in the message, and consenting to participate in the trial. Similarly, in a study by Wang and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e), a bilingual, signed physician\u0026rsquo;s letter sent to Chinese Americans saw an enrolment rate of 32% on average, but this enrolment strategy enrolled comparatively fewer recent immigrants and uninsured Chinese Americans than community-based approaches. These findings illustrate that this recruitment approach risks excluding groups with less trust in healthcare institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.2 Designing Educational Interventions and Including Peer-Educators\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSince lack of knowledge about cancer ED and cancer ED research was identified as a significant barrier to research participation, interventions promoting education and awareness were often included as part of recruitment strategies. Fourteen studies organised educational sessions to counter stigma, stereotypes and false information about cancer research and associated data-collection procedures (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e), hypothesising that increasing the knowledge about cancer, early detection, and cancer ED research in communities would lead to higher participation rates. Smith and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e) found that educational workshops followed by question-and-answer sessions were the most successful recruitment strategy, the latter being essential to give participants space to get their questions answered instead of being passive recipients of information. Another practical approach among these studies was to ask those present at the educational session to participate in the data collection immediately afterwards. However, this type of intervention was only feasible when participants were asked to either sign up to study, donate a biospecimen sample, or complete another brief test or task (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e). Four studies designed interventions through culturally tailored videos to raise awareness of biobanking and cancer screening research projects (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePeer Educators\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeven papers from the selected studies recruited and trained peer educators from the target community to disseminate information about cancer (ED) and research and recruit potential study participants. Peer educators, described by various terms such as \u0026lsquo;\u003cem\u003ePromotores de Salud\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e), \u0026lsquo;community health educators\u0026rsquo; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e) or \u0026lsquo;local champions\u0026rsquo; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e), were chosen to disseminate information in a particular community because they are more likely to be considered a trusted source than a research team of \u0026lsquo;outsiders\u0026rsquo;, and because they are more likely to understand cultural sensitivities and appropriate manners of communication. Therefore, recruiting peer educators not only addresses lacunae in terms of knowledge of cancer, early detection, and research but also considers the lack of trust in biomedical research and healthcare professionals, as well as the importance of cultural appropriateness. In addition, peer educators can reach community members through their existing networks, which means they can get more isolated individuals (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInvolving peer educators in study design and implementation also often seemed coupled with a desire to alter power dynamics between research teams and communities involved in cancer ED research. In contrast with one-off recruitment strategies, peer educators can be part of a long-term relationship between research teams and their communities and become essential actors in the bidirectional communication between the two sides.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, training peer educators (e.g., in presentation skills, leadership skills, health promotion and recruitment strategies) and investing in their development can be part of an effort to \u0026lsquo;give back\u0026rsquo; to the researched community and to make the relationship between researchers and communities mutually beneficial. The \u003cem\u003epromotoras\u003c/em\u003e participating in the study by Larkey and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e) developed skills and obtained experiences that led to further opportunities for career advancement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.3 Combining research with community needs\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeople approached for cancer ED research may not see cancer ED research as a priority among all other causes and activities that require their time and attention. Moreover, participation in research activities can be an unappealing prospect. Therefore, seven studies in the sample combined research activities with community needs to make participation more appealing and to provide essential information to communities that could benefit from this. As a result, incorporating services that address community needs can render the researcher-participant relationship less extractive and contribute to a trusting relationship between the research team and research participants from marginalised communities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eScreening service and research participation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThree studies invited research participants by bringing screening services into the communities researchers hoped to recruit from (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e). For example, McElfish and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e) recruited rural, medically underserved women in Arkansas (USA) for their breast cancer study using a mobile mammography unit (MammoVan). The unit provided breast cancer screening to women without a history of breast cancer free of charge, after which the women were asked to participate in the study, which involved an additional survey and saliva sample. The MammoVan recruitment strategy led to more rural and lower-educated participants (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e). In the other two studies, potential research participants were offered several tests to collect health data, after which they were asked to donate these samples for research purposes. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis approach successfully reached underrepresented groups in cancer ED research in all three studies, but two things must be noted. Firstly, this method only has added value in areas where access to screening and other health services is insufficient: in places where potential research participants have easy access to cancer screening services and other health tests, this approach would have little added value for communities that researchers hope to recruit from. Secondly, the types of procedures offered to and asked from potential participants influence the likelihood of participation: Yeary and colleagues found that research activities with a higher participant burden, such as mammography and blood tests, saw much lower participation rates than simple procedures, such as surveys and anthropometric measurements, even when the indicated intent to participate was equally high or higher (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEducational needs and research participation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRather than offering insight into personal health, four studies (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e) combined research recruitment with meeting the educational needs of a particular group or community. Educating about health topics can increase intent to participate in research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e), but offering educational sessions about various issues can also be part of building trust between researchers and participants and an act of service to a participating community. This is illustrated by a study conducted by Langford and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e), for which the research team organised breakfasts for African American men. In addition to talks about prostate cancer and cancer research, the team solicited ideas from men to address topics they wanted to learn about. As a result, some breakfast talks covered seemingly unrelated themes, such as self-motivation and estate planning, demonstrating the researchers\u0026rsquo; recognition of the broad way in which men define health. By inviting various speakers, from NFL players to urologists, to the breakfast programme, the research team offered their resources to benefit the community.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.4 Increasing cultural competence of research team\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe cultural competence of research teams and outreach materials was an overarching and often-cited theme in the selected studies. However, in six studies (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e), increasing the cultural competence, or cultural humility (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e) of the research and recruitment staff, was a key strategy. In all cases, manuscripts mentioned having a diverse team that included members of the community the study sought to engage. In addition, some research teams were explicitly trained in cultural competence. For example, Wallington and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e) employed a highly diverse research and recruitment team, who were all trained in core practices of cultural competence, \u0026ldquo;acquiring and institutionalising cultural knowledge\u0026rdquo; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e). While the effects of diverse research teams and cultural competence training are challenging to quantify, results seemed optimistic: Wallington and colleagues reported that the culturally competent, community-based strategies led to a 62% increase in the enrolment of black participants in the study compared to previous recruitment tactics (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.5 Overcoming practical barriers in study design\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSixteen studies mentioned practical barriers to research participation for potential participants (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR53\" citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e). These barriers include geographic accessibility, that is, the location where research was being conducted were far or difficult to reach (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e), or participants had no access to the right transportation (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e); and the time, duration, or timing of trials (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e), language barriers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e), among other constraints. These practical barriers can be felt disproportionally by ethnic minority populations because they often have a lower socioeconomic status compared to their White counterparts (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor issues related to the geographic accessibility of the research location, different solutions were offered, which focused either on bringing the research site closer to potential participants or facilitating transportation. Wallington and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e) moved the site from where research and outreach were being conducted to two community-based offices in the medically underserved neighbourhoods where they hoped to recruit for the study. The locations were picked with input from two community advisory boards and were both well-connected to bus and metro lines, as well as being within walking distance for many study participants. To facilitate transportation to the research site, a solution offered by one study was to pay for transportation expenses (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e) while colleagues organised transportation to the churches that functioned as project sites in their most successful recruitment arm (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4 DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis scoping literature review has highlighted several ways to include groups often underrepresented in cancer ED research. It draws on studies published between 2002 and April 2022 in anglophone countries \u0026ndash; primarily the USA, that have empirically tested interventions to enhance participant diversity. This review demonstrates that in-person interactions, whether by the research team or designated (peer) recruiters, are important in engaging participants from minoritised groups (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e). The importance of face-to-face interactions may be linked to building trust: mechanisms include getting to know the research team in person and having a two-way dialogue to address particular reservations of potential research participants (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e69\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e). Gren and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e) found that for the recruitment of minoritised populations, in-person \u0026lsquo;community outreach\u0026rsquo; (e.g., recruitment in churches, seminars, and health fairs) was an important addition to direct mail communication, as direct mail alone failed to convince people from minoritised groups to participate in research. Existing literature suggests several locations where such face-to-face interactions could occur, as well as forms of interaction (such as educational workshops and mobile screening services) and aspects to consider when communicating with potential research participants (e.g., culturally tailored- messages).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother valuable insight from this review is the importance of developing study protocols and recruitment strategies in collaboration with people from the communities researchers hope to recruit from. The engagement strategies discussed in this review were virtually all developed with at least some input from researchers, participants, or other advisors who belong to an underrepresented group. Some studies chose community-based participatory approaches and developed protocols and outreach strategies through collaboration or co-creation with individuals or organisations representing minoritised groups (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e). These approaches communicate respect for and attention to minoritised groups researchers want to engage in cancer ED research; they have also been shown to increase statistically positive outcomes in a recent systematic review (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis review also documents that combinations of strategies for involving participants from underrepresented groups are necessary. Each recruitment and engagement strategy successfully reaches some groups but excludes others. For example, Sadler and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e) note that the Black women they recruited through the cosmetologist\u0026rsquo;s salons are women who can afford such services. Similarly, Leach, Schoenberg, and Hatcher (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e) found that, though they conducted research in a rural area characterised by low education levels and high breast cancer mortality, the women they got in touch with through outreach efforts tended to enjoy a higher socioeconomic status and were up to date on breast cancer screening. In other words, even when successful overall, strategies to invite underrepresented groups to participate in cancer ED research tend to exclude specific marginalised subgroups. This suggests that various engagement and recruitment strategies should be combined to reach a wide range of potential participants, and researchers should pay careful attention to their study designs to address the concerns of these (sub)groups. Again, community-based-participatory approaches can help research teams identify these barriers accurately.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis scoping review documents a plethora of barriers and issues in cancer ED research and biomedical research more generally, experienced particularly by members of minoritised groups. These include a lack of trust in researchers, a lack of medical literacy, and insufficient cultural competence in research staff. Although we offer tools to address some of these issues and barriers within a single study or project scope, addressing these issues requires a long-term, collective effort from research institutions and healthcare organisations more generality. Together, these efforts contribute to a more significant shift in biomedical research culture that (re)builds trust between researchers and potential research participants, especially those from minoritised backgrounds. To build trust, relationships between researchers and research participants need to change from appearing extractive to feeling mutually beneficial and collaborative (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). The engagement of minoritised groups in research and inclusive study designs are just one part of this process; increased education and career opportunities in cancer research for people from minoritised backgrounds (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e72\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e73\u003c/span\u003e), input from minoritised groups at the policy level, and improved ethnicity coding in healthcare (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e74\u003c/span\u003e) are other essential elements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis targeted scoping review has limitations that need to be considered. The searches in PubMed and PsycINFO were executed exclusively in English. While many of the manuscripts discussed in this review have tested interventions that could be applied in a variety of contexts and countries, they are based on healthcare systems, socio-economic conditions, and racialised societal relations that may be unique to their own countries, which in turn affect the perceived barriers to cancer ED research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition, the search terms used for this review leave out studies that do not mention recruitment strategies in their title or abstract. Therefore, we may have missed publications for which recruitment strategies are not a focus of the publication, but which are nonetheless described and evaluated in the body of the text.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, this review only includes those studies that have tested or qualitatively evaluated interventions to increase participation or engagement of underserved groups, which means the timescale of these studies is limited: projects that aim to address the historical mistrust of some groups towards cancer research and foster a culture of trust between researchers and research subjects are more challenging to evaluate since they take much longer to bear fruit (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e75\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFuture trials may be necessary to test specific interventions to ascertain their effectiveness in engaging underrepresented groups compared to \u0026lsquo;traditional\u0026rsquo; or known recruitment and engagement strategies. Importantly, no intervention will work for all, so evaluations will have to pay careful attention to the particularities of each underrepresented group (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e76\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition, future studies are needed to test the potential for contemporary communications methods to recruit participants from underrepresented groups into cancer ED research. Tested approaches using direct mail and radio commercials may be irrelevant in many societies today, whereas various social media platforms have shown some promise to reach potential cancer ED research participants (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e77\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLastly, this review focused on Black and Latinx groups, whereas other (ethnic) minorities received less attention, such as sexual minorities and people with disabilities or co-morbidities. Further developing and standardising recruitment strategies may not lead to the inclusion of \u003cem\u003eall\u003c/em\u003e societal groups in cancer ED research, as every strategy has its own blind spot. Future research could focus on more neglected groups. These efforts will continue enhancing the diversity of participant research cohorts and contribute to a general shift in research culture and the relationships between researchers and participants.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5 CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003e This scoping literature review has highlighted empirically tested tools that research teams can employ to improve participation rates of groups often underrepresented in cancer ED research. Combinations of these methods can help overcome the perceived barriers to participation in cancer research that mainly affect people without a cancer diagnosis from these minoritised groups. Not only will these methods lead to more representative cancer ED studies that benefit all of society; the highlighted approaches also contribute to a more significant shift in research culture towards less extractive and more trusting relationships between researchers and the public.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eDeclarations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Non-applicable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Non-applicable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; The authors declare that they have no competing interests\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the International Alliance for Cancer Early Detection (ACED), an alliance between Cancer Research UK [EICEDAAP\\100011], the Canary Center at Stanford University, the University of Cambridge, OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, University College London and the University of Manchester. Ignacia Arteaga\u0026rsquo;s work was also supported by the National Institutes of Health\u0026rsquo;s National Institute on Aging grant DP1AG069809 (Dohan). This content is solely the authors' responsibility and does not necessarily represent the official views of ACED or the National Institutes of Health\u0026rsquo;s National Institute on Aging.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFB completed most of the review and wrote the first draft of the article. MR supported the article selection process included in the review. NP and IA jointly obtained the funding for this project and supervised the work leading to this scoping literature review. NP had essential input over the design and methodology of this review. IA contributed to the analysis of the review and revised the manuscript for publication. All authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrosby D, Lyons N, Greenwood E, Harrison S, Hiom S, Moffat J, et al. A roadmap for the early detection and diagnosis of cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(11):1397\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLyons N, Crosby D, Dixon R, Greenwood E, Harrison S, Hiom S et al. Early Detection and Diagnosis of Cancer a Roadmap for the Future [Internet]. London: Cancer Research UK; 2020 [cited 2024 Aug 27]. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/early_detection_diagnosis_of_cancer_roadmap.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/early_detection_diagnosis_of_cancer_roadmap.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Cancer Institute [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Aug 27]. NCI Early Detection Research Network. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://edrn.nci.nih.gov\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://edrn.nci.nih.gov\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eeatris.eu [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Aug 27]. Early Cancer Detection Europe. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://eatris.eu/projects/early-cancer-detection-europe-ecade/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://eatris.eu/projects/early-cancer-detection-europe-ecade/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAldrighetti CM, Niemierko A, Van Allen E, Willers H, Kamran SC. Racial and Ethnic Disparities Among Participants in Precision Oncology Clinical Studies. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(11):e2133205.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWitham MD, Anderson E, Carroll C, Dark PM, Down K, Hall AS, et al. Developing a roadmap to improve trial delivery for under-served groups: results from a UK multi-stakeholder process. Trials. 2020;21(1):694.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFarooqi A, Jutlla K, Raghavan R, Wilson A, Uddin MS, Akroyd C, et al. Developing a toolkit for increasing the participation of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in health and social care research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022;22(1):17.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrockhoven F, Raphael M, Currier J, J\u0026auml;derholm C, Mody P, Shannon J, et al. REPRESENT recommendations: improving inclusion and trust in cancer early detection research. Br J Cancer. 2023;129(8):1195\u0026ndash;208.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCurrier J, Arteaga I, Turner-Uaandja H, Starling B, Pashayan N, J\u0026auml;derholm C, et al. Represent: A community engagement roadmap to improve participant representation in cancer early detection research: An Oregon case study. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1110543.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYeary KHcheon, Moore K, Turner P, Dawson J, Heo L, Greene S. Feasibility Test of a Community-Relevant Intervention Designed to Promote African American Participation in Translational, Breast Cancer Disparities Research: Know About Health Options for Women (Know HOW). J Canc Educ. 2018;33(1):29\u0026ndash;36.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSrivastava S, Koay EJ, Borowsky AD, De Marzo AM, Ghosh S, Wagner PD, et al. Cancer overdiagnosis: a biological challenge and clinical dilemma. Nat Rev Cancer. 2019;19(6):349\u0026ndash;58.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHousten AJ, Lowenstein LM, Hoffman A, Jacobs LE, Zirari Z, Hoover DS, et al. A Review of the Presentation of Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids. MDM Policy Pract. 2019;4(2):238146831988144.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHersch J, Jansen J, Barratt A, Irwig L, Houssami N, Howard K, et al. Women\u0026rsquo;s views on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: a qualitative study. BMJ. 2013;346(jan23 1):f158\u0026ndash;158.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening, Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, Dewar JA, Thompson SG, et al. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review: A report jointly commissioned by Cancer Research UK and the Department of Health (England) October 2012. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(11):2205\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArring NM, Aduse-Poku L, Jiagge E, Saylor K, White-Perkins D, Israel B, et al. A Scoping Review of Strategies to Increase Black Enrollment and Retention in Cancer Clinical Trials. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18(9):614\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSedrak MS, Freedman RA, Cohen HJ, Muss HB, Jatoi A, Klepin HD, et al. Older adult participation in cancer clinical trials: A systematic review of barriers and interventions. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(1):78\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMilrod CJ, Mann M, Blevins F, Hughes D, Patel P, Li KY, et al. Underrepresentation of Black participants and adverse events in clinical trials of lenalidomide for myeloma. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol. 2022;172:103644.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNouvini R, Parker PA, Malling CD, Godwin K, Costas-Mu\u0026ntilde;iz R. Interventions to increase racial and ethnic minority accrual into cancer clinical trials: A systematic review. Cancer. 2022;128(21):3860\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNolan TS, Bell AM, Chan Y, Leak Bryant A, Bissram JS, Hirschey R. Use of Video Education Interventions to Increase Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review. Worldviews Ev Based Nurs. 2021;18(5):302\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHamel LM, Penner LA, Albrecht TL, Heath E, Gwede CK, Eggly S. Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrollment in Racial and Ethnic Minority Patients with Cancer. Cancer Control. 2016;23(4):327\u0026ndash;37.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRivers D, August EM, Sehovic I, Lee Green B, Quinn GP. A systematic review of the factors influencing African Americans\u0026rsquo; participation in cancer clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;35(2):13\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeller C, Balls-Berry JE, Nery JD, Erwin PJ, Littleton D, Kim M, et al. Strategies addressing barriers to clinical trial enrollment of underrepresented populations: A systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;39(2):169\u0026ndash;82.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJulian McFarlane S, Occa A, Peng W, Awonuga O, Morgan SE. Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) to Enhance Participation of Racial/Ethnic Minorities in Clinical Trials: A 10-Year Systematic Review. Health Commun. 2022;37(9):1075\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBonevski B, Randell M, Paul C, Chapman K, Twyman L, Bryant J, et al. Reaching the hard-to-reach: a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):42.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMunn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCritical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP Systematic Review Checklist [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2024 Aug 27]. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/systematic-review-checklist/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/systematic-review-checklist/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHainsworth E, McGrowder E, McHugh J, Bancroft E, Mahabir S, Webber W, et al. How can we recruit more men of African or African-Caribbean ancestry into our research? Co-creating a video to raise awareness of prostate cancer risk and the PROFILE study. Res Involv Engagem. 2022;8(1):14.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eColon-Otero G, Albertie M, Lesperance M, Weis JA, Coles A, Smith N, et al. A Pilot Program in Collaboration with African American Churches Successfully Increases Awareness of the Importance of Cancer Research and Participation in Cancer Translational Research Studies among African Americans. J Canc Educ. 2012;27(2):294\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCudjoe J, Turkson-Ocran RA, Ezeigwe AK, Commodore-Mensah Y, Nkimbeng M, Han HR. Recruiting African Immigrant Women for Community-Based Cancer Prevention Studies: Lessons Learned from the AfroPap Study. J Community Health. 2019;44(5):1019\u0026ndash;26.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCunningham-Erves J, Mayo-Gamble TL, Hull PC, Lu T, Barajas C, McAfee CR, et al. A pilot study of a culturally-appropriate, educational intervention to increase participation in cancer clinical trials among African Americans and Latinos. Cancer Causes Control. 2021;32(9):953\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavis SN, Govindaraju S, Jackson B, Williams KR, Christy SM, Vadaparampil ST, et al. Recruitment Techniques and Strategies in a Community-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Study of Men and Women of African Ancestry. Nurs Res. 2018;67(3):212\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFair AM, Wujcik D, Lin JMS, Egan KM, Grau AM, Zheng W. Timing is everything: Methodologic issues locating and recruiting medically underserved women for abnormal mammography follow-up research. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008;29(4):537\u0026ndash;46.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFord ME, Havstad SL, Davis SD. A randomized trial of recruitment methods for older African American men in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. Clin Trails. 2004;1(4):343\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFriedman DB, Johnson KM, Owens OL, Thomas TL, Dawkins DS, Gansauer L, et al. Developing Partnerships and Recruiting Dyads for a Prostate Cancer Informed Decision Making Program: Lessons Learned From a Community-Academic-Clinical Team. J Canc Educ. 2012;27(2):243\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGreiner KA, Friedman DB, Adams SA, Gwede CK, Cupertino P, Engelman KK, et al. Effective Recruitment Strategies and Community-Based Participatory Research: Community Networks Program Centers\u0026rsquo; Recruitment in Cancer Prevention Studies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23(3):416\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGren L, Broski K, Childs J, Cordes J, Engelhard D, Gahagan B, et al. Recruitment methods employed in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial. Clin Trails. 2009;6(1):52\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHalbert CH, Brewster K, Collier A, Smith C, Kessler L, Weathers B, et al. Recruiting African American Women to Participate in Hereditary Breast Cancer Research. JCO. 2005;23(31):7967\u0026ndash;73.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJackson DD, Owens OL, Friedman DB, Hebert JR. An Intergenerational Approach to Prostate Cancer Education: Findings from a Pilot Project in the Southeastern USA. J Canc Educ. 2014;29(4):649\u0026ndash;56.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJones RA, Steeves R, Williams I. Strategies for Recruiting African American Men Into Prostate Cancer Screening Studies. Nurs Res. 2009;58(6):452\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKiviniemi MT, Saad-Harfouche FG, Ciupak GL, Davis W, Moysich K, Hargrave NC, et al. Pilot Intervention Outcomes of an Educational Program for Biospecimen Research Participation. J Canc Educ. 2013;28(1):52\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLangford AT, Griffith DM, Beasley DD, Braxton EID. A Cancer Center\u0026rsquo;s Approach to Engaging African American Men About Cancer: The Men\u0026rsquo;s Fellowship Breakfast, Southeastern Michigan, 2008\u0026ndash;2014. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014;11:140187.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcNeill LH, Reitzel LR, Escoto KH, Roberson CL, Nguyen N, Vidrine JI, et al. Engaging Black Churches to Address Cancer Health Disparities: Project CHURCH. Front Public Health. 2018;6:191.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRodriguez EM, Saad-Harfouche FG, Miller A, Mahoney MC, Ambrosone CB, Morrison CD, et al. Engaging diverse populations in biospecimen donation: results from the Hoy y Ma\u0026ntilde;ana study. J Community Genet. 2016;7(4):271\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRogers CR, Matthews P, Brooks E, Le Duc N, Washington C, McKoy A, et al. Barriers to and Facilitators of Recruitment of Adult African American Men for Colorectal Cancer Research: An Instrumental Exploratory Case Study. JCO Oncol Pract. 2021;17(5):e686\u0026ndash;94.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSadler GR, Ko CM, Cohn JA, White M, Weldon Rnesha, Wu P. Breast cancer knowledge, attitudes, and screening behaviors among African American women: the Black cosmetologists promoting health program. BMC Public Health. 2007;7(1):57.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSlade JL, Holt CL, Bowie J, Scheirer MA, Toussaint E, Saunders DR, et al. Recruitment of African American Churches to Participate in Cancer Early Detection Interventions: A Community Perspective. J Relig Health. 2018;57(2):751\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith A, Vidal GA, Pritchard E, Blue R, Martin MY, Rice LJ, et al. Sistas Taking a Stand for Breast Cancer Research (STAR) Study: A Community-Based Participatory Genetic Research Study to Enhance Participation and Breast Cancer Equity among African American Women in Memphis, TN. IJERPH. 2018;15(12):2899.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTabriz AA, Fleming PJ, Shin Y, Resnicow K, Jones RM, Flocke SA, et al. Challenges and opportunities using online portals to recruit diverse patients to behavioral trials. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019;26(12):1637\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTham HM, Hohl S, Copeland W, Briant KJ, M\u0026aacute;rquez-Maga\u0026ntilde;a L, Thompson B. Enhancing Biospecimen Knowledge Among Health Care Providers and Representatives From Community Organizations. Health Promot Pract. 2017;18(5):715\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWallington SF, Dash C, Sheppard VB, Goode TD, Oppong BA, Dodson EE, et al. Enrolling Minority and Underserved Populations in Cancer Clinical Research. Am J Prev Med. 2016;50(1):111\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWebb Hooper M, Mitchell C, Marshall VJ, Cheatham C, Austin K, Sanders K, et al. Responding to healthcare distrust among underserved communities: Phase II. Psycho-oncology. 2022;31(1):3\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcElfish PA, Su LJ, Lee JY, Runnells G, Henry-Tillman R, Kadlubar SA. Mobile Mammography Screening as an Opportunity to Increase Access of Rural Women to Breast Cancer Research Studies. Breast Cancer࿽(Auckl). 2019;13:117822341987629.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKreling BA, Ca\u0026ntilde;ar J, Catipon E, Goodman M, Pallesen N, Pomeroy J, et al. Latin American Cancer Research Coalition: Community primary care/academic partnership model for cancer control. Cancer. 2006;107(S8):2015\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLarkey LK, Gonzalez JA, Mar LE, Glantz N. Latina recruitment for cancer prevention education via Community Based Participatory Research strategies. Contemp Clin Trials. 2009;30(1):47\u0026ndash;54.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCupertino AP, Saint-Elin M, De Los Rios JB, Engelman KK, Greiner KA, Ellerbeck EF, et al. Empowering \u003cem\u003ePromotores de Salud\u003c/em\u003e as Partners in Cancer Education and Research in Rural Southwest Kansas. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2015;42(1):15\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcIntyre J, Jim\u0026eacute;nez J, Rivera YM, Sutton SK, Asencio G, Castro-Figueroa EM, et al. Comparison of Health Communication Channels for Reaching Hispanics About Biobanking: a Pilot Trial. J Canc Educ. 2018;33(4):833\u0026ndash;41.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang JHyu, Sheppard VB, Liang W, Ma GX, Maxwell AE. Recruiting Chinese Americans into cancer screening intervention trials: Strategies and outcomes. Clin Trails. 2014;11(2):167\u0026ndash;77.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeach CR, Schoenberg NE, Hatcher J. Factors Associated With Participation in Cancer Prevention and Control Studies Among Rural Appalachian Women. Fam Community Health. 2011;34(2):119\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSheppard VB, Cox LS, Kanamori MJ, Ca\u0026ntilde;ar J, Rodr\u0026iacute;guez Y, Goodman M, et al. Brief report: If you build it, they will come: Methods for recruiting latinos into cancer research. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(5):444\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTan NS, Custodio H, LaBreche M, Fex CC, Tui\u0026rsquo;one May V, Pang JK, et al. Biospecimen Education Among Pacific Islanders in Southern California. J Canc Educ. 2019;34(4):658\u0026ndash;65.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDean C, Fogleman AJ, Zahnd WE, Lipka AE, Malhi RS, Delfino KR, et al. Engaging rural communities in genetic research: challenges and opportunities. J Community Genet. 2017;8(3):209\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEpstein S, Inclusion. The politics of difference in medical research. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press; 2008.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiri VN, Selvan P, Mohanty S, Lum R, Serrao S, Leader AE. Exploring Asian Indian views about cancer and participation in cancer research: an evaluation of a culturally tailored educational intervention. J Community Genet. 2020;11(2):193\u0026ndash;203.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMa GX, Tan Y, Blakeney NC, Seals BF, Ma XS, Zhai S, et al. The Impact of a Community-Based Clinical Trial Educational Intervention among Underrepresented Chinese Americans. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23(3):424\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSarma EA, Rendle KA, Kobrin SC. Cancer symptom awareness in the US: Sociodemographic differences in a population-based survey of adults. Prev Med. 2020;132:106005.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLekas HM, Pahl K, Fuller Lewis C. Rethinking Cultural Competence: Shifting to Cultural Humility. Health Serv Insights. 2020;13:117863292097058.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavies E. \u0026lsquo;This has given me the peace of mind I needed\u0026rsquo;: ethnographic insights into Barrett\u0026rsquo;s oesophagus screening using the capsule sponge test. J Med Ethics. 2024;jme-2024-109928.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOyer RA, Hurley P, Boehmer L, Bruinooge SS, Levit K, Barrett N, et al. Increasing Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials: An American Society of Clinical Oncology and Association of Community Cancer Centers Joint Research Statement. JCO. 2022;40(19):2163\u0026ndash;71.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBonner G, Williams S, Wilkie D, Hart A, Burnett G, Peacock G. Trust Building Recruitment Strategies for Researchers Conducting Studies in African American (AA) Churches: Lessons Learned. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2017;34(10):912\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIbrahim S, Sidani S. Strategies to Recruit Minority persons: A Systematic Review. J Immigr Minor Health. 2014;16(5):882\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcFarlane JS, Occa A, Peng W, Awonuga O, Morgan SE. Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) to Enhance Participation of Racial/Ethnic Minorities in Clinical Trials: A 10-Year Systematic Review. Health Commun. 2022;37(9):1075\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRamirez AG, Gallion KJ, Perez A, Adeigbe RT, Munoz E, Pasick RJ. \u0026Eacute;xito! Making an Impact in Training Latinos for Doctorates and Cancer Research. J Canc Educ. 2019;34(5):928\u0026ndash;37.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMochona B, Lyon D, Offringa IA, Redda KK, Reams RR, Odedina F, et al. Developing a Novel Framework for an Undergraduate Cancer Research Education and Engagement Program for Underrepresented Minority Students: the Florida-California CaRE2 Research Education Core (REC) Training Program. J Canc Educ. 2021;36(5):914\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRouten A, Akbari A, Banerjee A, Katikireddi SV, Mathur R, McKee M, et al. Strategies to record and use ethnicity information in routine health data. Nat Med. 2022;28(7):1338\u0026ndash;42.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRussell J, Fudge N, Greenhalgh T. The impact of public involvement in health research: what are we measuring? Why are we measuring it? Should we stop measuring it? Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6(1):63.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFarooqi A, Jutlla K, Raghavan R, Wilson A, Uddin MS, Akroyd C, et al. Developing a toolkit for increasing the participation of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in health and social care research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022;22(1):17.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang Z, Shafer A, Johnson-Camacho K, Adey A, Anur P, Brown KA, et al. Novel recruitment approaches and operational results for a statewide population Cohort for cancer research: The Healthy Oregon Project. J Clin Trans Sci. 2024;8(1):e32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Table 1","content":"Table 1 is available in the supplementary file section."}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"minoritised groups, diversity, early detection, cancer research, research culture, research participation","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5005757/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5005757/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eBackground: Improvements in access to early-detection research on cancer are still urgently needed to ensure that new research on early-stage cancer detection benefits all groups in society. To achieve this, cancer early detection (ED) studies must include participants from all walks of life. There are unique aspects to cancer early detection research that may deter potential research participants and complicate efforts to involve people from underrepresented backgrounds that require a review on its own merit. For instance, a unique risk for cancer ED research is overdiagnosis and overtreatment, in which a tumour is uncovered and treated that would not have led to the patient’s death if left undiscovered and untreated. This potential ‘side effect’ of cancer ED research participation is particularly problematic for those without adequate access to healthcare and insurance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMethods: Contributing to a growing literature on approaches to increase diversity in cancer detection research, we conducted a targeted scoping review to identify published approaches that have been implemented and tested, either quantitatively or qualitatively, to improve participation of minoritised groups in cancer ED research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResults: This review identifies themes in the 38 included studies that aimed to recruit and involve participants from underserved groups in cancer ED research so that future studies may learn from or further test these varied strategies. We narratively group the review in terms of the barriers identified, and the approaches that have been designed to improve participation. These include rethinking recruitment locations and partnerships with local communities, designing educational interventions, combining research with community needs, increasing cultural competence of research teams, and overcoming practical barriers in study design.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConclusions: This scoping literature review highlights various tools, empirically tested, that research teams can employ to improve participation rates of groups underrepresented in cancer ED research. Combinations of these methods can help overcome the perceived barriers to participation in cancer research that mainly affect people without a cancer diagnosis from these minoritised groups. Not only will these methods increase the generalizability and representativeness of studies; the highlighted approaches also contribute to a more significant shift in research culture towards less extractive and more trusting relationships between researchers and the public.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Increasing participation of underrepresented groups in cancer early detection research: a scoping review","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-02 14:47:16","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5005757/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"222d698b-8c6d-4e0d-ac3c-114d19930733","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 2nd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-10-02T14:47:16+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-02 14:47:16","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5005757","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5005757","identity":"rs-5005757","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}