Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Generational Value Differences Affecting Public Perceptions of and Willingness to Participate in Clinical Trials

  • Special Populations: Original Research
  • Published:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

It is widely acknowledged that patient recruitment is a significant challenge and represents one of the primary reasons for drug development delays. Data from the Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation (CISCRP) “Perceptions & Insights” study indicate that the 18- to 34-year-old Generation Y subgroup was the least willing to participate in a clinical trial.

Methods

The willingness of Generation Y to participate in clinical studies was compared to that of older groups in the CISCRP study. These results were then compared to data from earlier studies.

Results

Statistically significant differences existed between the willingness of Generation Y to participate in clinical studies when compared to older age groups. Generational perceptions and value differences were explored via corporate and sociological research findings to determine why disparities existed among age groups regarding the willingness for clinical trial participation.

Conclusions

Preliminary results indicate that members of Generation Y are less willing to participate in clinical studies and that these differences are truly generational and not simply age related.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Trauth JM, Musa D, Siminoff L, Jewell IK, Ricci E. Public attitudes regarding willingness to participate in medical research studies. J Health Soc Policy. 2000;12(2):23–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. EvaluatePharma. World Preview 2018. Worldwide Total Pharmaceutical R&D Spend: 2004–2018. Wilmington, Delaware: EvaluatePharma Inc; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Petryna A. When experiments travel: clinical trials and the global search for human subjects. Available at: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BnG1-VigFi8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=reasons+for+outsourcing+clinical+trials&ots=x4m-IaupSE&sig=rXOGFkg_EBCFC1NLlzEu0rhXKVY#v=onepage&q=reasons%20for%20outsourcing%20clinical%20trials&f=false. Accessed November 15, 2013.

  4. Findlay S. Outsourcing clinical trials: growth continues. Pharmaceutical Technology Europe. 2009;21(5):51–52.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kaitin K. Global site landscape remains highly fragmented with variable performance. Tufts University. Impact Report. 2013;15(2):1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation (CISCRP). Perceptions & insights study: public and patient perceptions of clinical research. Available at: http://www.ciscrp.org/professional/reports/. Accessed November 15, 2013.

  7. Getz K. Public confidence and trust today: a review of public opinion polls. The Monitor. 2008;22(5):17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nappo SA, Iafrate GB, Sanchez AM. Motives for participating in a clinical research trial: a pilot study in Brazil. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(19):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Stunkel J, Grady C. More than money: a review of the literature examining healthy volunteer motivations. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2011;32:342–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Getz K. New insights into study volunteer perceptions and experiences to inform patient-centric clinical trials. Clinical Researcher. 2014;28(2):17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brintnall-Karabelas J, Sung S, Cadman ME, Squires C, Whorton K, Pao M. Improving recruitment in clinical trials: why eligible participants decline. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011;6(1):69–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Guadagnoli E, Ward P. Patient participation in decision-making. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47(3):329–339.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Verheggen FW, Nieman F, Jonkers R. Determinants of patient participation in clinical studies requiring informed consent: why patients enter a clinical trial. Patient Educ Couns. 1998;35:111–125.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Epstein RM, Peters E. Beyond information: exploring patients’ preferences. JAMA. 2009;302(2):195–197.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Siegal G, Bonnie RJ, Appelbaum PS. Personalized disclosure by information-on-demand: attending to patients’ needs in the informed consent process. J Law Med Ethics. 2012;40:359–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. White J. Thinking generations. Br J Sociol. 2013;64(2):216–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Carlson E. 20th-century U.S. generations. Population Reference Bureau. 2009;64(1):1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Smola KW, Sutton CD. Generational differences: revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. J Organ Behav. 2002;23:363–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jorgensen B. Baby boomers, generation X and generation Y? Foresight. 2003;5(4):41–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ng ESW, Schweitzer L, Lyons ST. New generation, great expectations: a field study of the millennial generation. J Bus Psychol. 2010;25:281–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Getz K. New insights into study volunteer perceptions and experiences to inform patient-centric clinical trials. Clinical Researcher. 2014;28(2):17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  22. National Institutes of Health. Grants and funding: glossary and acronym list. Available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/glossary.htm#C. Accessed January 2, 2014.

  23. Pearson Education. Medical advances timeline. Available at: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0932661.html. Accessed April 27, 2014.

  24. Pew Research Center, Pew Internet & American Life Project. The social life of health information: Americans’ pursuit of health takes place within a widening network of both online and offline resources. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/2009/PIP_Health_2009.pdf. Accessed April 27, 2014.

  25. Allerton HE. Generation why: they promise to be the biggest influence since the baby boomers. Training & Development. 2001;55(11):56–60.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Research America. National poll on clinical research. Available at: http://www.researchamerica.org/uploads/June2013clinicaltrials.pdf. Accessed April 29, 2014.

  27. YPULSE. Millennials and news, fact-checked. Available at: http://www.ypulse.com/post/view/millennials-and-news-fact-checked. Accessed April 27, 2014.

  28. Twenge JM, Campbell WK, Freeman EC. Generational differences in young adults’ life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation, 1966–2009. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012;102(5):1045–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Aspen Education Group. Narcissistic and entitled to everything! Does Gen Y have too much self-esteem? Available at: http://aspeneducation.crchealth.com/articles/article-entitlement/. Accessed April 27, 2014.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Health Sciences, Eastern Michigan University, Marshall Building, Ypsilanti, MI, 48197, USA

    April M. Nelson MS & Irwin G. Martin PhD

  2. Center for the Study of Drug Development, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

    Kenneth A. Getz MBA

  3. Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation (CISCRP), Boston, MA, USA

    Kenneth A. Getz MBA

Authors
  1. April M. Nelson MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Irwin G. Martin PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kenneth A. Getz MBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irwin G. Martin PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nelson, A.M., Martin, I.G. & Getz, K.A. Generational Value Differences Affecting Public Perceptions of and Willingness to Participate in Clinical Trials. Ther Innov Regul Sci 49, 940–946 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479015583727

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479015583727

Keywords

Search

Navigation