105 Gender-Diverse Inclusion: The Language of Sex and Gender in PrEP Clinical Trials

IF 2.1 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Jeremiah Lee, Terry D. Church
{"title":"105 Gender-Diverse Inclusion: The Language of Sex and Gender in PrEP Clinical Trials","authors":"Jeremiah Lee, Terry D. Church","doi":"10.1017/cts.2024.103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To construct an assessment scale capable of evaluating a trial’s gender literacy or the extent to which biologically assigned “sex” is understood as separate from culturally defined and personally embodied “gender”. This scale in tandem with a policy brief will outline recommendations for inclusive medical nomenclature in the clinical space. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Using clinicaltrials.gov, inclusion/exclusion criteria was recorded for PrEP interventional trials (i.e., Truvada, Descovy). To evaluate these trials, an assessment scale for “gender literacy” is necessary. This scale relies on the fact that sex and gender are distinct elements to one’s identity and ought to be reported as such. As a form of content analysis, where literary information (eligibility criteria) is evaluated based on set rubric, this scale will require validation through inter-coder agreement. Evaluated in a group of 5 college-age students, this scale was used on selected PrEP clinical trials to verify if there was high agreement in the scores given. After validation, the dataset from clinicaltrials.gov underwent evaluation using the proposed assessment scale for gender literacy. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The student coders had a Kalpha of 0.4 in the first round of grading. After retraining, their Kalpha increased to 0.68. The grading involved a subjective language rating (LIR), evaluating the usage of inclusive language, and a numerical score (GR) for the demographics of inclusion in a trial. After this inter-coder agreement validation, 216 active PrEP clinical trials (as of March 2023) were downloaded from clinicaltrials.gov. Grading of these trials showed that cisgender males represented 40% of participants, while 28% represented both transgender men and women, and less than 1% represented non-binary individuals. Moreover, more than half of the trials (52%) exhibited cisgender-oriented language or made no reference to gender identity. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: It is a scientific imperative for clinical trials to have representative participant bases in order to derive data that is generalizable to afflicted populations. Especially for PrEP clinical trials, where gender-diverse individuals need visibility, trial design must be carefully crafted so as not to exclude through dated or exclusionary language.","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To construct an assessment scale capable of evaluating a trial’s gender literacy or the extent to which biologically assigned “sex” is understood as separate from culturally defined and personally embodied “gender”. This scale in tandem with a policy brief will outline recommendations for inclusive medical nomenclature in the clinical space. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Using clinicaltrials.gov, inclusion/exclusion criteria was recorded for PrEP interventional trials (i.e., Truvada, Descovy). To evaluate these trials, an assessment scale for “gender literacy” is necessary. This scale relies on the fact that sex and gender are distinct elements to one’s identity and ought to be reported as such. As a form of content analysis, where literary information (eligibility criteria) is evaluated based on set rubric, this scale will require validation through inter-coder agreement. Evaluated in a group of 5 college-age students, this scale was used on selected PrEP clinical trials to verify if there was high agreement in the scores given. After validation, the dataset from clinicaltrials.gov underwent evaluation using the proposed assessment scale for gender literacy. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The student coders had a Kalpha of 0.4 in the first round of grading. After retraining, their Kalpha increased to 0.68. The grading involved a subjective language rating (LIR), evaluating the usage of inclusive language, and a numerical score (GR) for the demographics of inclusion in a trial. After this inter-coder agreement validation, 216 active PrEP clinical trials (as of March 2023) were downloaded from clinicaltrials.gov. Grading of these trials showed that cisgender males represented 40% of participants, while 28% represented both transgender men and women, and less than 1% represented non-binary individuals. Moreover, more than half of the trials (52%) exhibited cisgender-oriented language or made no reference to gender identity. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: It is a scientific imperative for clinical trials to have representative participant bases in order to derive data that is generalizable to afflicted populations. Especially for PrEP clinical trials, where gender-diverse individuals need visibility, trial design must be carefully crafted so as not to exclude through dated or exclusionary language.
105 多性别包容:PrEP 临床试验中的性与性别语言
目的/目标:构建一个评估量表,用于评估试验的性别素养,或生物分配的 "性别 "与文化定义和个人体现的 "性别 "在多大程度上是分开的。该量表将与一份政策简报一起,概述临床领域包容性医学术语的建议。方法/研究对象:使用 clinicaltrials.gov,记录 PrEP 干预试验(即 Truvada 和 Descovy)的纳入/排除标准。为了评估这些试验,有必要制定 "性别扫盲 "评估量表。该量表基于这样一个事实,即性和性别是一个人身份的不同要素,因此应该如实报告。作为内容分析的一种形式,文学信息(资格标准)根据设定的标准进行评估,该量表需要通过编码员之间的一致意见来验证。由 5 名大学生组成的小组对该量表进行了评估,并将其用于选定的 PrEP 临床试验,以验证给出的分数是否高度一致。经过验证后,使用建议的性别素养评估量表对来自 clinicaltrials.gov 的数据集进行了评估。结果/预期结果:在第一轮评分中,学生编码员的 Kalpha 值为 0.4。经过再培训后,他们的 Kalpha 值提高到了 0.68。评分包括主观语言评分 (LIR)(评估包容性语言的使用)和数字评分 (GR)(评估纳入试验的人口统计学特征)。在对编码员之间的一致意见进行验证后,从 clinicaltrials.gov 下载了 216 项有效的 PrEP 临床试验(截至 2023 年 3 月)。对这些试验的分级显示,顺性别男性占参与者的 40%,28% 的参与者既包括变性男性也包括变性女性,只有不到 1%的参与者是非二元个体。此外,半数以上的试验(52%)使用了以顺性性别为导向的语言或未提及性别认同。讨论/意义:临床试验必须要有代表性的参与者基础,这样才能获得对受影响人群具有普遍意义的数据。尤其是 PrEP 临床试验,因为需要关注不同性别的个体,所以必须精心设计试验设计,以免通过过时或排斥性的语言将其排除在外。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
26.90%
发文量
437
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信