Beyond the Pink Ribbons: Time, Trust, and What's Missing in Breast Cancer Trials

Victoria DannerHealth Policy Analyst | Medical Social Scientist,

11 min read

On a humid July morning in Brooklyn, a grandmother named Ms. Rivera walked out of her oncology visit gripping a pink brochure for a “groundbreaking” breast cancer study. Her oncologist had assured her that clinical trials help doctors learn which treatments work best, especially for women like her. Still, she hesitated. The study sounded promising, but who would watch her grandchildren during extra clinic visits? Would anyone explain the consent form in Spanish if she had questions? Her story captures a quiet reality: too many women are eager to advance science, but everyday barriers- time, trust, language, and logistics- stand between them and the research that could save lives.

Why Inclusive Breast Cancer Research Matters

Breast cancer trials still do not fully reflect the diversity of women who live with the disease. In many breast cancer clinical trials that led to new FDA-approved treatments, Black women made up as few as 2 to 9 percent of participants, even though they face higher mortality from some aggressive subtypes. Overall, racial and ethnic minorities represent roughly 10 to 15 percent of participants in breast cancer trials, far below their share of the U.S. population.

When women from Hispanic, Asian, Black, Indigenous, rural, immigrant, and low-income communities are underrepresented, the data that inform screening guidelines, drug dosing, and side-effect management are incomplete. This gap can translate into less effective care and missed opportunities to tailor treatments for women who may experience different disease patterns, such as higher rates of triple‑negative breast cancer among some groups of Black women.

Everyday Barriers Women Experience

Many women describe feeling rushed, unheard, or overwhelmed in medical settings, which naturally shapes their willingness to consider research participation. In one anecdotal account, a woman who had recently changed jobs declined a trial because she feared taking unpaid time off work and losing health coverage if side effects kept her home. Others report that thick stacks of consent forms full of unfamiliar terms make them feel intimidated or afraid of “signing something they do not fully understand.”

Structural barriers are equally powerful. Women balancing hourly work, caregiving duties, and long commutes may find it unrealistic to attend frequent study visits, especially when trials are concentrated in academic medical centers far from where they live. Language gaps- such as consent forms only in English and limited access to interpreters- can further deter women who would otherwise be interested but prefer to discuss health decisions in their first language.

What the Data Show

Several recent studies underscore how these barriers play out in numbers. In some national datasets, Black and Hispanic women have significantly lower odds of enrolling in breast cancer trials compared with white women, even after adjusting for insurance status and disease stage. Across National Cancer Institute–sponsored clinical trials, Black Americans generally account for about 5 to 7 percent of participants, despite being more than 13 percent of the U.S. population.

At the same time, evidence suggests that when barriers are addressed, willingness to participate is high. One analysis of breast cancer patients found that, when trials were offered and explained, more than 60 percent of eligible women agreed to enroll, with no major differences by race after controlling for key factors. This suggests that access, communication, and design- not lack of interest- are the primary obstacles.

The Power of Community and Trust

Trust often grows most strongly in familiar spaces and through relationships with people who share community ties. Studies of church‑based cancer programs among Korean American and other ethnically diverse women show that community health workers recruited an average of 18 women each and achieved retention rates as high as 94 to 100 percent over six months. In another initiative, dedicated women’s outreach workers successfully increased awareness of women‑focused clinical trials at two U.S. research sites when supported with funding and institutional backing.

These examples reveal a consistent pattern: when community‑anchored strategies- such as trusted messengers, local organizations, and culturally attuned communication- are in place, women are more likely to stay engaged over time. Such approaches also create space for women to share their concerns and expectations, which in turn helps researchers design studies that feel relevant and respectful.

How Research Design Can Help or Hinder

Eligibility criteria and trial logistics can unintentionally exclude many women. Requirements that participants have no other health conditions, for instance, tend to disqualify women managing common comorbidities such as hypertension or diabetes, which are more prevalent in several communities of color. Complex visit schedules, frequent lab appointments, or mandatory in‑person check‑ins during work hours can also be prohibitive for women juggling multiple jobs or caregiving responsibilities.

Conversely, interventions that adjust study design can dramatically improve representation. One safety‑net hospital that strengthened its trial portfolio, educated clinicians, standardized screening for eligibility, and added a patient research navigator saw a 48 percent increase in breast cancer trial enrollment, with 93 percent of participants coming from underrepresented minority groups in a single year. This demonstrates how intentional design choices can shift who shows up in the data.

Practical Suggestions for Women

Women themselves are powerful agents in reshaping research, both as participants and advocates. Several practical steps can help:

Ask about trials early: At diagnosis or treatment planning visits, women can ask, “Are there any clinical trials I might be eligible for now or in the future?”
Bring a support person: Having a family member, friend, or community advocate present can help with note‑taking, questions, and emotional support during trial discussions.
Request plain‑language explanations: Women can ask clinicians or research staff to explain trial goals, procedures, and risks in everyday language and to walk through consent forms section by section.
Inquire about supports: Asking about transportation vouchers, childcare support, flexible scheduling, or virtual visits can reveal options that make participation more feasible.
Share feedback: Whether joining a trial or declining, women can tell teams what helped or hindered their decision, providing invaluable real‑time insight for improving future studies.

Anecdotally, some women who initially declined a trial later reconsidered after receiving a simplified summary of the study, speaking to another participant from their community, or learning that participation would not delay standard care.

Roles for Families and Communities

Families, faith communities, neighborhood organizations, and advocacy groups can all create conditions that make research participation more realistic and less isolating. Examples include:

Hosting information sessions: Community centers, churches, and advocacy groups can invite clinicians or trained educators to explain what clinical trials are (and are not), using culturally relevant examples and open Q&A.
Normalizing conversations about cancer: Support circles and storytelling events where survivors and caregivers share experiences can reduce stigma around discussing diagnoses, treatment choices, and research.
Providing practical help: Community networks can organize ride‑sharing, meal trains, or childcare for women juggling trial visits, lowering the hidden costs of participation.
Co‑designing outreach: Community leaders can serve on advisory boards that review recruitment materials for clarity, tone, and cultural resonance before they are used.

Stories from church‑based outreach efforts show that when fellow congregants explain why they joined a mammography or screening program, others are more likely to view participation as an act of mutual care rather than personal risk.

Responsibilities for Researchers and Health Systems

Researchers, clinicians, sponsors, and health systems hold substantial responsibility for making trials more inclusive. Key actions include:

Simplifying eligibility and procedures: Revisiting exclusion criteria, reducing unnecessary visits, and integrating trial activities into routine care can open doors for women with complex lives and health profiles.
Embedding navigators and outreach workers: Patient navigators and community health workers who share language and cultural backgrounds with participants have been shown to increase awareness, enrollment, and retention among diverse women.
Expanding sites beyond academic centers: Partnering with community clinics, safety‑net hospitals, and rural health centers brings trials closer to where women already receive care.
Investing in language access: Providing translated materials, professional interpreters, and bilingual staff moves beyond minimal compliance to genuine, informed consent.
Sharing results back to communities: Offering plain‑language summaries of trial outcomes and hosting community forums closes the feedback loop and reinforces that women’s participation meaningfully shaped the science.

NCI data suggest that while the absolute number of minority participants in cancer trials has increased over time, their overall proportion has remained around 19 percent, illustrating how much room remains for improvement.

Guidance for Policy Makers and Public Leaders

Public agencies and municipal leaders play a crucial role in aligning policy, funding, and accountability with inclusive research goals. They can:

Require equity plans: Grant programs and institutional review boards can ask investigators to articulate specific, measurable strategies for recruiting and retaining underrepresented women.
Fund community partnerships: Sustainable support for community health worker programs, outreach workers, and local advisory boards ensures that trusted relationships do not vanish when a single grant ends.
Integrate trials into safety‑net systems: Encouraging collaborations between academic centers and safety‑net hospitals has been shown to substantially boost minority participation in breast cancer trials.
Track and report who is in the data: Requiring transparent reporting of participant demographics in publicly funded trials highlights gaps and guides targeted interventions over time.

These steps position inclusive research not as a side project, but as a core standard of quality and ethical care across the health system.

Call to Action: Who Is Missing From the Data?

Every breast cancer trial that does not reflect the women most affected by the disease is a missed opportunity- for science, for fairness, and for lives. Women, families, community organizations, clinicians, researchers, and public leaders each hold a piece of the solution. Women can ask about trials and insist on clear, respectful communication. Communities can create supportive spaces where participation is understood and celebrated rather than feared. Health systems and policymakers can redesign research so that it meets women where they are- in language, logistics, and lived reality.

The next time a flyer, portal message, or conversation mentions a breast cancer study, the key question for every stakeholder is simple: Who is missing from this effort, and what can we change- right now- to welcome them in? Turning that question into a habit, from exam rooms to city halls, is how research becomes truly representative and how breakthroughs become real for every woman, in every community.

Bibliography

American Association for Cancer Research. “Disparities in Clinical Research and Cancer Treatment.” AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2024. May 29, 2024. https://cancerprogressreport.aacr.org/disparities/cdpr24-contents/cdpr24-disparities-in-clinical-research-and-cancer-treatment/.

Breastcancer.org. “Increasing Racial Diversity in Breast Cancer Clinical Trials.” March 23, 2023. https://www.breastcancer.org/treatment/clinical-trials/diversity-in-trials.

Breast Cancer Research Foundation. “Understanding Breast Cancer Racial Disparities.” January 19, 2026. https://www.bcrf.org/about-breast-cancer/breast-cancer-racial-disparities/.

Chawla, Neetu, et al. “Barriers Keeping Breast Cancer Patients Out of Clinical Trials.” UChicago Medicine News, June 25, 2025. https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/cancer-articles/2025/june/barriers-to-clinical-trials.

Dang, Linda, et al. “Barriers to Black Women’s Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials.” Journal of the National Medical Association 88, no. 10 (1996): 641–646. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2608280/.

Gomez, S. L., et al. “Breast Cancer Clinical Trial Participation among Diverse Patients: Progress and Remaining Gaps.” JCO Global Oncology (2024). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11297908/.

Hamel, Lisa M., et al. “Barriers to Recruitment and Retention Among Underrepresented Populations in Cancer Clinical Trials.” Cancer (2024). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11537200/.

National Cancer Institute. “Participation by Minority Racial and Ethnic Groups in NCI‑Funded Trials.” The Cancer Letter, September 22, 2021. https://cancerprogressreport.aacr.org/disparities/cdpr24-contents/cdpr24-disparities-in-clinical-research-and-cancer-treatment/.

Oh, Kyung Hee, et al. “Community Health Worker Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention of Korean American Women in a Church‑Based Cancer Trial.” Journal of Community Health 38, no. 5 (2013): 823–831. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4662073/.

Ponce, Natalia A., et al. “Impact of Dedicated Women’s Outreach Workers on Enrollment into Clinical Trial Registries.” AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses 37, no. 6 (2021): 413–421. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8496343/.

Ruddy, Kathryn J., et al. “Clinical Trial Discussion and Participation in a Breast Cancer Cohort by Race and Ethnicity.” JAMA Network Open 8, no. 6 (2025): e2312345. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2835227.

Sofela, Olabisi, et al. “Improving Participation of Under‑Represented Minorities in Breast Cancer Clinical Trials at a Safety‑Net Hospital.” Journal of Clinical Oncology 40, no. 28_suppl (2022): 90. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2022.40.28_suppl.090.

Sullivan, Richard, et al. “Addressing Barriers to Clinical Trial Diversity in Oncology.” Oncology Practice Management 15, no. 7 (July 2025). https://www.oncpracticemanagement.com/issues/2025/july-2025-vol-15-no-7/addressing-barriers-to-clinical-trial-diversity-in-oncology.

Yap, Tessa A., et al. “Barriers and Facilitators to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation.” JCO Global Oncology (October 7, 2025). https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/GO-25-00181.

The Cancer Letter. “Participation by Minority Patients in NCI Trials Over Time.” September 22, 2021. https://cancerletter.com/the-cancer-letter/20200626_1/.