P307: Public Access to Clinical Trial Information: A Usability Comparison of Korea and the U.S
Poster Presenter
Iyn-Hyang Lee
Professor
College of Pharmacy, Yeungnam University Korea, Republic of
Objectives
This study investigates the accessibility, comprehensibility, and relevance of publicly available clinical trial recruitment information for eight major cancer types in Korea and the U.S., with a focus on plain language (PL) usage and patient-centered communication.
Method
Keyword searches were completed in 01/2025, using Google API with predefined keywords regarding cancer clinical trials in English and Korean. The top 99 search results for each cancer type were extracted and assessed by two researchers based on accessibility, PL usage, and recruitment relevance.
Results
This study analyzed recruitment information for clinical trials across eight major cancer types: bladder, breast, colorectal, liver, lung, pancreatic, prostate, and stomach cancer. Keyword searches were conducted using the Google Search API in both English and Korean, following the structured query format: (cancer type clinical trial “involvement OR engagement OR participation”). Out of 792 search results per country, 63 (8.0%) web pages in Korea and 139 (17.6%) web pages in the U.S. contained clinical trial information. Accessibility, measured by the proportion of clinical trial-related web pages among search results, was significantly higher for U.S. sites, suggesting that clinical trial information is more difficult to find in Korea. This limited accessibility may hinder patient participation in Korea compared to the U.S. Among the 63 Korean-language web pages containing clinical trial information, 35 (55.6%) were rated as comprehensible, meaning they used simplified descriptions and minimized medical jargon. In contrast, only 22 (15.8%) of the 139 U.S. sites were classified as patient-friendly, as medical terminology was more commonly used. Relevance was assessed based on whether web pages provided key recruitment details, such as trial objectives, eligibility criteria, and procedures. While 87.8% (122/139) of U.S. sites included these essential details, only 74.6% (47/63) of Korean sites did. Despite the higher prevalence of patient-friendly language in Korean sites, they often lacked critical trial information necessary for informed decision-making. All differences in accessibility (p < 0.001), comprehensibility (p < 0.001), and relevance (p = 0.032) between Korea and the U.S. were statistically significant.
Conclusion
This study highlights regional differences in the accessibility, comprehensibility, and relevance of clinical trial recruitment information between Korea and the U.S. While U.S. websites provided more accessible and detailed information, Korean websites used more plain language (PL), making them more patient-friendly. However, despite better readability, Korean sites often lacked essential trial details, potentially limiting patient participation. Lower accessibility in Korea suggests a barrier to patient engagement, while complex medical terminology on U.S. sites may reduce comprehension. These findings emphasize the need for improved public communication strategies to enhance both accessibility and clarity. Increasing the visibility of clinical trial opportunities and using plain language without omitting critical details could support better patient decision-making in both regions. Addressing these disparities through policy interventions and standardized communication guidelines may improve access to clinical trials. A key limitation of this study is its reliance on online keyword searches, which may not capture all available clinical trial information. Search engine algorithms influence result rankings, and variations in phrasing may affect retrieved data. Additionally, using only Google may not fully represent how clinical trial information is distributed across other search engines or platforms. Regional differences in search indexing could also have impacted results. Future research should use multiple search engines and diverse data sources for a more comprehensive assessment.
