Communities of color have faced disproportionate morbidity and mortality from COVID-19, coupled with historical underrepresentation in US clinical trials, creating challenges for equitable participation in developing and testing a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine.

To increase diversity, including racial and ethnic representation, in local Los Angeles County NIH-sponsored Phase 3 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine clinical trials, we used deliberative community engagement approaches to form a Community Consultant Panel (CCP) that partnered with trial research teams. Thirteen members were recruited, including expertise from essential workers, community-based and faith-based organizations, or leaders from racial and ethnic minority communities.

Working closely with local investigators for the vaccine studies, the CCP provided critical insight on best practices for community trust building, clinical trial participation, and reliable information dissemination regarding COVID-19 vaccines. Modifying recruitment, outreach, and trial protocols led to majority–minority participants (55%–78%) in each of the three vaccine clinical trials. CCP’s input led to cultural tailoring of recruitment materials, changes in recruitment messaging, and supportive services to improve trial accessibility and acceptability (transportation, protocols for cultural competency, and support linkages to care in case of an adverse event). Barriers to clinical trial participation unable to be resolved included childcare, requests for after-hours appointment availability, and mobile locations for trial visits.

Using deliberative community engagement can provide critical and timely insight into the community-centered barriers to COVID-19 vaccine trial participation, including addressing social determinants of health, trust, clinical trial literacy, structural barriers, and identifying trusted messenger and reliable sources of information.

Failure to achieve accrual goals is a common problem in health-related research. Electronic health records represent a promising resource, offering the ability to identify a precisely defined cohort of patients who meet inclusion/exclusion criteria. However, challenges associated with the recruitment process remain and institutional policies vary.

We interviewed researchers, institutional review board chairs, and primary care physicians in North Carolina and Tennessee. Questions focused on strategies for initiating contact with potentially eligible patients, as well as recruitment letters asking recipients to opt in versus opt out of further communication.

When we asked about initiating contact with prospective participants, qualitative themes included trust, credibility, and established relationships; research efficiency and validity; privacy and autonomy; the intersection between research and clinical care; and disruption to physician–researcher and physician–patient relationships. All interviewees said it was acceptable for researchers to contact patients through their physicians; most said it was acceptable for researchers to contact patients directly. Over half chose contact through physicians as more appropriate. Regarding recruitment letters, qualitative themes included the quality of the participant pool; privacy and control; research efficiency and representativeness; and patients’ opportunity to make their own decisions. All interviewees said asking recipients to opt in to further communication was acceptable; nearly all said opt out was acceptable. Similar proportions chose each approach as more appropriate.

Comparing these results to our previous research with patients reveals potential differences in stakeholder perspectives. We offer suggestions for developing balanced approaches that respect patients and facilitate the advancement of science.