Abstract Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine how oncology clinicians, particularly those in community settings where the majority of patients receive care, navigate referrals to academic centers, including for clinical trial enrollment, by identifying factors that influence their referral practices, with the ultimate goal of improving partnerships between community and academic centers. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews (N=23) with community oncology clinicians (oncologists, n=8; nurse practitioner, n=1; physician assistant, n=1) and academic oncologists at an NCI-designated cancer center (n=13) to examine their experiences and perspectives across the referral process to academic centers, including connecting patients to appropriate clinical trials. Both groups were included to capture the diverse contexts in which trial referrals occur and to understand how organizational environments shape referral practices. Transcripts were thematically analyzed. Results: Oncology clinicians described three key considerations shaping the clinical trial referral process: (1) reasons to refer to academic centers, or reasons referrals were received to academic centers; (2) perceived barriers to referrals, such as logistical and financial barriers, and lack of communication; and (3) referral facilitators, including institutional support, scheduling efficiency, and strong communication between oncologists and trial teams. Oncology clinicians concluded by providing suggestions for improvement, such as streamlining referral pathways, reducing logistical or structural barriers, and improving patient education on clinical trials. Conclusions: Oncology clinicians’ engagement in the academic center referral process, including referrals to clinical trials, is shaped by multiple interrelated factors, including motivations, barriers, and facilitators for referrals. The oncology clinicians in our sample outlined several opportunities for improvement in the referral process. Understanding these considerations across both community and academic settings can inform strategies to streamline referrals, enhance trial participation, and improve patient access to novel therapies. Our findings highlight the importance of addressing context-specific barriers to enhance trial accessibility and participation. Strengthening communication channels and providing tailored institutional support may strengthen alignment between community and academic settings, thereby expanding equitable access to oncology clinical trials. Citation Format: Carma Bylund, Naomi Parker, Kelsey Lunsford, Jonathan Thomas, Margo Michaels, Tithi Amin, Stephanie Staras. Unpacking clinical trial referral processes: A qualitative study of community and academic oncologists [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 6354.

Abstract We examined the impact of an online training intervention, “Preparing Patients for Cancer Treatment Discussions,” on primary care providers’ knowledge, attitudes/beliefs, and communication/referral behavior. We partnered with Clinical Directors Network (CDN), Florida Academy of Family Physicians, and U.S. Residency Program Directors to recruit primary care providers (MDs, DOs, NPs, and PAs), Family Medicine residents, Internal Medicine residents and Geriatric fellows. The 1-hour, asynchronous online training was hosted by three faculty members: a primary care provider, radiation oncologist, and cancer clinical trials expert. Participants engaged in simulated patient and clinical scenarios to practice communication about oncology referrals and cancer clinical trials. Pre- and post-training surveys measured knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and willingness to discuss trials. Further, a 3-month follow-up survey measured the sustained impact of the training on communication behavior about clinical trial referrals. 135 primary care providers (91 residents, 44 practicing clinicians) participated in the training intervention (84% retention at 3-month follow-up). Knowledge improved from a mean of 51.8% to 82.4% correct (p<.001) immediately after training and was sustained with a mean score of 77.7% correct (p<.001) at 3-month follow-up. Mean belief scores concerning the primary care provider's role in assisting patients with decisions about clinical trials increased from 4.1 to 4.6 (1-5 scale; p<.001) immediately following training. This improvement was sustained at a score of 4.5 (p<.001) during the 3-month follow-up. Additionally, mean scores for the willingness to communicate about clinical trials increased from 4.3 to 4.6 (1-5 scale; p<.001) immediately after training. This improvement was sustained at a score 4.5 (p<.001) during the 3-month follow-up. Behavior measures increased significantly at 3-month follow-up. Providers were asked the percentage of patients they educated about receiving treatment with a cancer clinical trial and encouraged to inquire about receiving treatment from a cancer clinical trial prior to making a referral. Education (15.1% to 52.9%) and inquiry encouragement (17.6% to 62.4%) both increased (p<0.001). Providers were asked the same questions regarding patients that returned after their oncology visit to discuss treatment options. Education (13.9% to 49.5%) and inquiry encouragement (20.7% to 47.8%) both increased significantly (p<0.001). Significant improvements in knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, communication and referral behavior demonstrate the online course was effective. Future plans for dissemination and sustainability include integrating the online course into curricula for medical and nursing education. Citation Format: Carma Bylund, Alyssa Crowe, Margo Michaels, Domenic Durante, Maria Sae-Hau, Andrea Cassells, Jason Arnold, Ana Natale-Pereira, Raymond Mailhot Vega, Zhongyue Zhang, Ji-Hyun Lee, Elisa S. Weiss. Evaluation of a training intervention for primary care providers to prepare patients for cancer discussions with their oncologists [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 7573.

Introduction: Cancer clinical trials (CCTs) are essential to advancing treatment options for patients with hematologic malignancies. Academic cancer centers often lead early-phase and investigator-initiated trials exploring novel agents or mechanisms. Referrals from community oncology sites play a critical role in connecting patients to these CCT opportunities. Strengthening referral pathways between community and academic settings may support improved trial accrual and access. As part of formative work for a multi-level implementation trial aimed at improving equitable access to CCTs, we explored community oncology clinicians' experiences with referrals and identified opportunities to strengthen referral-related communication and coordination. Findings are informing two implementation strategies: Enhanced Connection (focused on reducing barriers to referral) and Enhanced Communication (a clinician training intervention to support referral and trial-related conversations). This formative research is supported by The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society's Equity in Access Research Program as part of its broader mission to improve clinical trial access for patients with hematologic malignancies and other cancer types. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 cancer clinicians (n = 8 oncologists, n = 2 physician assistants) at community oncology sites in Florida between November 2024 and May 2025. Interviews focused on referral experiences, perceived barriers and facilitators to referrals, and suggested strategies or tools to better support referral to academic cancer centers. A thematic analysis approach was used to identify and synthesize themes across interviews. Results: Five key themes were identified. (1) Clinicians described motivators of referral to academic cancer centers, including the need for therapies that are not locally available (e.g., cellular therapies, bone marrow transplant), second opinions for rare or complex cases, or when standard therapy options had been exhausted. (2) Clinicians also discussed clinical reasons for not referring, such as standard treatment options, locally available trials, or when they anticipated patient-level barriers (e.g., frailty, travel burden, insurance limitations). (3) Clinicians reported multiple barriers to referral, including clinician-level challenges (e.g., limited awareness of trial offerings, time constraints, and lack of established relationships with academic oncologists), patient-level challenges (e.g., urgency to initiate treatment, travel burden, insurance limitations, financial concerns), and system-level challenges (e.g., slow intake processes at academic cancer centers). (4) Clinicians highlighted several facilitators of referral, including direct communication with academic oncologists and/or study staff, internal support from staff to identify trials and expedite referrals, and having a dedicated liaison to streamline coordination. (5) Clinicians suggested strategies and tools to enhance referral effectiveness, including centralized contact lists, regularly updated trial summaries, referral guidelines and decision aids, and searchable trial databases or applications. When prompted, many endorsed the option of consultation for a clinical trial via telehealth, citing convenience and a timely trial feasibility assessment. Notably, we also found that nearly all participating interviewees reported that their community sites are participating in clinical trials and offer them to patients within their clinic. Conclusions: Findings from this formative research are informing the design of a multi-level implementation trial aimed at improving accrual to CCTs, including those for hematologic malignancies. Planned strategies will target modifiable determinants at the institutional, clinician, and patient levels. Early engagement with community oncology stakeholders has been vital for understanding real-world referral processes and challenges, and fundamental for shaping pragmatic, context-specific interventions that support referral pathways between community and academic settings.

BackgroundRecruitment to cancer clinical trials (CCTs) is low, particularly for underrepresented groups such as uninsured patients, those with low-income status, and racial and ethnic minoritized individuals. A significant barrier is that treating oncologists often fail to inform patients about the possibility of CCT participation as an option for quality cancer care. Therefore, patient inquiries about trials before starting treatment should be normalized and encouraged, particularly for underrepresented groups. Primary care providers (PCPs) are uniquely suited to do this because they interact with patients at the time of cancer diagnosis, provide ongoing care, and are trusted sources of information. ObjectiveThis study was designed to pilot an innovative web-based CCT training intervention for PCPs, including practicing clinicians and trainees, to increase their ability to prepare patients for cancer treatment decisions and conversations with oncologists about clinical trials. MethodsWe conducted an evaluation of a pilot study using a self-guided, 1-hour web-based training intervention for PCPs with survey assessments before the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and at the 3-month follow-up. We used a mixed methods approach, incorporating quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis. The evaluation was guided by the Kirkpatrick evaluation model, focusing on levels 1 (reaction), 2 (learning), and 3 (behavior). ResultsA total of 29 PCPs completed the intervention and pre- and postintervention measures, with 28 (97%) PCPs completing the 3-month follow-up assessment. Of these 28 PCPs, 8 (29%) participated in a qualitative interview after the 3-month follow-up assessment. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with the course. CCT knowledge, as well as attitudes and beliefs, improved after the course and were sustained at the 3-month follow-up. PCPs reported willingness to communicate with patients about cancer treatment options, including CCTs, and willingness to talk with their colleagues about potential changes in referral practices. However, fewer PCPs had actually engaged in these conversations by the 3-month follow-up. In the interviews, PCPs cited limited interprofessional knowledge sharing and organizational constraints as barriers. Notably, PCPs reported changes in their communication behavior with patients: a higher proportion reported communicating with patients at the time of referral about cancer treatment options and clinical trials at the 3-month follow-up than at baseline. In the interviews, PCPs reported that they felt more comfortable and empowered to have these conversations. ConclusionsThis pilot study found that a self-guided, 1-hour web-based training intervention for PCPs resulted in improved knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs, as well as improved communication with patients, to prepare them for discussions with oncologists about cancer treatment and CCTs. Future dissemination of this course has the potential to make an impact on CCT accrual.

Abstract Introduction: Cancer clinical trial (CCT) accrual is only 5-8%, and barriers to participate can be more acute for underserved groups. Enrollment of racial/ethnic minorities, older adults, adolescents, and young adults is not adequate to understand treatment outcomes unique to these populations. Education before seeing an oncologist can increase patients’ willingness to ask and consider receiving treatment through a CCT. Because primary care providers (PCPs) interact with patients during diagnosis, provide ongoing care, and are a trusted source of information, they can educate and normalize inquiries about therapeutic CCTs. The aim of this study was to pilot test an innovative, tailored online CCT course for PCPs. Methods: To participate, PCPs (MD, DO, NP, or PA) had to provide care in an outpatient setting, refer patients to a cancer treatment specialist in the past year, and be an English speaker residing in the U.S. or its territories. PCPs were recruited from Clinical Directors Network, University of Pennsylvania, and University of Florida. The 1-hour online course includes four modules hosted by a PCP and radiation oncologist with video segments of a CCT expert who summarized CCT recruitment research. Participants interact with patient scenarios and learn about the patient’s cancer diagnosis and medical/personal background. Videos of actors playing the roles of patient and doctor demonstrate communication skills taught in the course. PCPs completed short surveys prior to and immediately after completing the course. Results: 28 PCPs participated. PCPs were mainly MDs (88.9%), residents (17, 60.7%), White (46.4%), non-Hispanic/Latino (92.9%), and 50% women. Mean knowledge of CCTs scores (0-100%) increased significantly from pre (M=56.7, SD=17.5) to post (M=82.1, SD=12; p Conclusions: Significant pilot findings in knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, and communication scores demonstrate that the online course was effective at educating PCPs about CCTs, and improving PCPs’ attitudes about the CCT referral process, and their willingness to engage in their patients’ cancer care. Future research will include a larger sample and explore the course’s impact on PCP’s referral behavior. Citation Format: Alyssa Crowe, Elisa S. Weiss, Margo Michaels, Domenic Durante, Maria Sae-Hau, Andrea Cassells, Carla L. Fisher, Jason Arnold, Taylor Vasquez, Ana Natale-Pereira, Raymond Mailhot, Zhongyue Zhang, Carma L. Bylund. Pilot evaluation of an online course for primary care providers on preparing patients for cancer discussions with their oncologists [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 1008.

AbstractIntroductionDespite the importance of clinical trial participation among cancer patients, few participate—and even fewer patients from ethnic and racial minoritized groups. It is unclear whether suggested approaches to increase accrual are successful. We conducted a scoping review to identify evidence‐based approaches to increase participation in cancer treatment clinical trials that demonstrated clear increases in accrual. Notably, more stringent than other published reviews, only those studies with comparison data to measure a difference in accrual rates were included.MethodsWe searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science for English‐language articles published from January 1, 2012, to August 8, 2022. Studies were included if they were conducted in the United States, described single or multicomponent interventions, and provided data to measure accrual relative to baseline levels or that compared accrual rates with other interventions.ResultsSixteen articles were included: six with interventions addressing patient barriers, two addressing provider barriers, seven describing institutional change, and one describing policy change. Key themes emerged, such as a focus on patient education, cultural competency, and building the capacity of clinics. Few studies provide comparative accrual data, making it difficult to identify with certainty any effective, evidence‐based approaches for increasing accrual. Some patient‐ and system‐level interventions studies showed modest increases in accrual primarily through pre‐post measurement.ConclusionDespite an extensive body of literature about the barriers that impede cancer treatment trial accrual, along with numerous recommendations for how to overcome these barriers, results reveal surprisingly little evidence published in the last 10 years on interventions that increase accrual relative to baseline levels or compared with other interventions. As clinical trials are a primary vehicle through which we improve cancer care, it is critical that evidence‐based approaches are used to inform all efforts to increase accrual. Strategies for increasing participation in cancer clinical trials must be developed and rigorously evaluated so that these strategies can be disseminated, participation in trials can increase and become more equitable, and trial results can become more generalizable.

PURPOSE: There are numerous barriers to cancer clinical trial participation in the United States. This paper describes the approach and outcomes of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society's Clinical Trial Support Center (CTSC), whose nurse navigators assist patients with a blood cancer and their oncologists by identifying all appropriate trials based on clinical data and patient preference, facilitating informed and shared decision making, and minimizing enrollment barriers. METHODS: Data on patients served from October 2017 to October 2019 were analyzed using bivariate and multivariate analyses to determine demographic and clinical characteristics associated with enrollment. Reasons for nonenrollment were examined. RESULTS: The CTSC opened 906 patient cases during this time frame. Among all US patients with a closed case (n = 750), the clinical trial enrollment rate was 16.1%. Among those with a known enrollment outcome after a trial search (n = 537), the enrollment rate was 22.5%. Multivariate analysis controlling for variables significant in bivariate analyses (insurance, treatment status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and urban or rural residence) revealed that patients with Medicaid were less likely to enroll than those with private or commercial insurance (adjusted odds ratio, 0.054; CI, 0.003 to 0.899), and patients in treatment or maintenance were less likely to enroll than those relapsed or refractory to most recent therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.312; CI, 0.139 to 0.702). Primary reasons for nonenrollment were preference for standard of care (66.3%) and patient passed away (16.1%). CONCLUSION: The CTSC is an effective, replicable model for addressing multilevel barriers to clinical trial participation. The findings highlight the need to increase opportunities for trial participation sooner after diagnosis and among patients with Medicaid.

Background/Aims: Cancer clinical trials give patients access to state-of-the-art treatments and facilitate the translation of findings into mainstream clinical care. However, patients from racial and ethnic minority groups remain underrepresented in clinical trials. Primary care physicians are a trusted source of information for patients, yet their role in decision-making about cancer treatment and referrals to trial participation has received little attention. The aim of this study was to determine physicians’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about cancer clinical trials, their experience with trials, and their interest in appropriate training about trials. Methods: A total of 613 physicians in the New York City area primarily serving patients from ethnic and racial minority groups were invited via email to participate in a 20-min online survey. Physicians were asked about their patient population, trial knowledge and attitudes, interest in training, and personal demographics. Using calculated scale variables, we used descriptive statistical analyses to better understand physicians’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about trials. Results: A total of 127 physicians completed the survey. Overall, they had low knowledge about and little experience with trials. However, they generally had positive attitudes toward trials, with 41.4% indicating a strong interest in learning more about their role in trials, and 35.7% indicating that they might be interested. Results suggest that Black and Latino physicians and those with more positive attitudes and beliefs were more likely to be interested in future training opportunities. Conclusion: Primary care physicians may be an important group to target in trying to improve cancer clinical trial participation among minority patients. Future work should explore methods of educational intervention for such interested providers.

This “Recruitment & Retention” column discusses the fact that, although most clinical researchers have seen the definition of patient-centered care, seldom do they think how it applies to their processes and procedures to ensure an individual’s informed decision making about clinical trial participation. The author presents a tabular version of the seven principles for operationalizing patient-centered clinical trials at the site level.

As we seek ways to increase participation in our trials, it’s important that we take a look in the mirror. Four areas to reflect on are: 1. How well research is integrated into our care delivery.[1][1] 2. How well we systematically identify, screen, and approach potential participants:

Participation in cancer clinical trials (CCTs) is a key measure for delivery of quality cancer care. Yet, adult cancer patient participation in CCTs remains at about 3%, and participation rates are even lower among ethnic and racial minorities and the medically underserved. Social justice demands better representation of all populations in CCTs to ensure equal access to clinical trials and to ensure greater generalizability of trial results. Using a conceptual framework, this paper outlines a set of guiding principles deemed essential for effective and ethical implementation of community-based education in CCTs. Also described are examples of interventions related to this framework that have been used to overcome key barriers to trial enrollment among underserved populations. Application of the key principles, combined with ongoing engagement of cancer care institutions, suggests promise in enhancing trial participation.

Primary Care Providers (PCPs) can be instrumental in helping to prepare patients for referral to cancer treatment. It has been suggested that PCPs can have an important impact on priming patients about the possibility of receiving care within a cancer treatment clinical trial (CCT). However, little is understood about how to effectively engage primary care providers in educating patients about trials. Data were collected as part of two qualitative research projects about primary care providers’ role in referral to treatment and to CCTs. Participants were 27 PCPs who agreed to take part in qualitative face-to-face or telephone interviews and serve predominantly underserved, minority populations. Interviews identified a number of factors influencing referral to oncologists, including patients’ insurance coverage, location and proximity to treatment facilities, and the strength of ongoing relationships with and/or previous experience with a specialist. PCPs overwhelmingly expressed disinterest in discussing any treatment options, including CCTs. Misconceptions about quality of care received through trials were also common, presenting a deterrent to discussion. PCPs need targeted, evidence-based educational interventions to appropriately address their concerns about cancer clinical trials, enhance provider communication skills, and alter patient referral behavior. Steps must also be taken to strengthen communication between oncologists and referring PCPs.

How well does your site recruit patients? If yours is a typical clinical research site, it may be among those that don’t reach accrual goals for their studies (see [Figure 1][1]).[1][2] ![FIGURE 1][3] FIGURE 1 Investigative Site Enrollment Performance Share the questions found in [

This paper describes the use of a unique “Learning and Feedbackˮ approach to customize cancer clinical trials education programs for Community Bridges, a peer training intervention designed for African-American communities in North Carolina. Generic community education modules were demonstrated with key community leaders who were designated as trainers. Quantitative and qualitative assessments were provided on understanding of content, comfort with material, and cultural relevance. The generic materials were adapted into three revised modules, all featuring key messages about cancer clinical trials, discussion regarding distrust of medical research, common misconceptions about trials, patient protections, and a call to action to prompt increased inquiry about locally available trials. The revised modules were then used as part of a train-the-trainer program with 12 African-American community leaders. ENACCT’s use of the Learning and Feedback process is an innovative method for culturally adapting clinical trials education.

Under regulations promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), a covered entity may use and disclose a limited dataset for research,[1][1] public health, or healthcare operations if it obtains an assurance, in the form of a data use agreement, that the

Cancer clinical trial (CCT) accrual and retention rates remain disproportionately low among African Americans. Awarenesss and access to trials are crucial facilitators of trial participation. Strategies developed within a community-based participatory framework (CBPR) are potential solutions to increase awareness and access to CCTs. In this study, we describe the pilot phase of three innovative community-centered modules to improve basic CCT knowledge, awareness of locations to access CCT information, and opportunities to participate in CCTs. Four community organizations completed Community Bridges to CCT training-of-the-trainer and recruited adult African American volunteers to participate in one of three CCT education modules: a workshop about CCTs, a role play describing one person's experience with CCTs, or a call and response session reviewing myths and facts about CCTs. Pre- and post-test surveys were collected and analyzed using McNemar agreement statistic to evaluate changes in knowledge and attitudes regarding trials. Trainers enrolled 125 participants in the call and response (n = 22), role play (n = 60), and workshop (n = 43) modules. Module participants were mostly African American, female, and with a mean age of 53 years. Comparison of pre- and post-test responses demonstrates favorable changes in awareness of CCTs and where to access CCTs across the sample. Analysis by module type indicates significant increases for participants in the call and response (p < 0.01) and role play modules (p < 0.001), but not the workshop module. Despite measures taken to increase the participation and retention rate of African Americans in clinical trials, little advancement has been made. Developing tailored community education modules on CCTs within the CBPR framework is a promising innovation to increase knowledge about CCTs and favorable attitudes about participation that are known precursors to trial enrollment.

Whether just beginning the consent process or being already well down the path, research participants and their families share several common concerns. As research professionals, we may know what the answers to most questions should be, but we don’t always know how to respond in concise and clear

BACKGROUNDResearch has demonstrated that communication and care coordination improve cancer patient outcomes. To improve communication and care coordination, it is important to understand primary care providers' (PCPs') perceptions of communication with oncologists as well as PCPs' communication needs.METHODSA mixed‐methods approach was used in the present study. In the qualitative phase of the study, 18 PCPs practicing in underserved, minority communities were interviewed about their experiences communicating with oncologists. In the quantitative phase of the study, 128 PCPs completed an online survey about their preferences, experiences, and satisfaction with communication with oncologists.RESULTSResults indicated a PCP‐oncologist gap in communication occurred between diagnosis and treatment. PCPs wanted more communication with oncologists, updates on their patients' prognosis throughout treatment, and to be contacted via telephone or email and saw their role as crucial in providing supportive care for their patients.CONCLUSIONSAlthough PCPs recognize that they play a critical, proactive role in supporting patients throughout the continuum of their cancer care experience, existing norms regarding postreferral engagement and oncologist‐PCP communication often hinder activation of this role among PCPs. Expected standards regarding the method, frequency, and quality of postreferral communication should be jointly articulated and made accountable between PCPs and oncologists to help improve cancer patients' quality of care, particularly in minority communities. Cancer 2015;121:908–915. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

Background: Clinical trials are a critical resource for the discovery of new prevention, diagnostic, and treatment methods for cancer. The most effective prevention and treatment modalities are based on previous clinical trial results. However, participation in clinical trials is underrepresented by racial/ethnic minority populations, Asian Americans in particular. Asian Americans are the least represented of any ethnic groups in clinical trials. The purpose of this study is to develop and evaluate a culturally and linguistically appropriate community-based educational intervention to increase knowledge of and intent to participate in cancer clinical trials among underrepresented Chinese Americans.Methods: Community-Based Participatory Research approach was used to guide the development, cultural tailoring, implementation, and evaluation of clinical trial intervention. First, 22 Asian community representatives were recruited as community health educators (CHE) who received 12-hour training on clinical trial education. Second, 262 members were recruited from 11 Chinese community organizations. Of those recruited, a total of 247 eligible Chinese enrolled and participated in the clinical trial education delivered by trained CHEs. Participants completed pretest before and posttest after the intervention.Results: Fifteen of 21 measures of clinical trial knowledge showed significant changes post the intervention (P < 0.05). Education remained the sole demographic factor increasing clinical trial knowledge in multivariate analysis.Conclusion: Clinical trial education should emphasize both benefits to science and the larger Asian community. This community-based clinical trial intervention demonstrated promising results and has potential to enhance recruitment and participation in clinical trial research among the underrepresented Asian Americans.Impact: Improving clinical trial participation in the fast-growing Asian American population is key to dissemination of health innovations targeted to diminish health disparities.