How should trial teams make decisions about the proportions and diversity of the ethnic groups in their trial?

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Trials Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1186/s13063-024-08625-5
Shaun Treweek, Katie Gillies, Miles D Witham, Declan Devane, Kamlesh Khunti, Peter Bower, Adwoa Parker, Irene Soulsby, Bārbala Ostrovska, Sarah Prowse, Heidi Green
{"title":"How should trial teams make decisions about the proportions and diversity of the ethnic groups in their trial?","authors":"Shaun Treweek, Katie Gillies, Miles D Witham, Declan Devane, Kamlesh Khunti, Peter Bower, Adwoa Parker, Irene Soulsby, Bārbala Ostrovska, Sarah Prowse, Heidi Green","doi":"10.1186/s13063-024-08625-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The benefits of randomised trials are not shared equally, and people from ethnic minority groups are a key constituency under-served by clinical research and clinical care. The STRIDE project aimed to give trialists practical information about how to decide which ethnic groups should be in their trials, and at what proportion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We considered trials in six clinical areas: cancer, cardiovascular, diabetes, maternal health, mental health, and smoking cessation. We created a summary for each, including participants-intervention-comparators-outcomes, and data on disease prevalence by ethnicity. These were discussed with panels with clinical expertise, trial and methodology expertise, lived experience, funding, and experience of working with and on behalf of ethnic communities. For each trial, we asked panel members to decide which ethnic groups should have been involved and at what proportion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We discussed 23 trials with 40 individual panel members. Panels found our questions difficult to answer. The lack of publicly available data on prevalence by ethnicity was central to this. Where data were available, decision-making was easier but not simple. The discussions led to eight STRIDE recommendations. We recommend that discussions involve diverse teams and that discussions need time, with access to the best available data. In the absence of data or consensus, we recommend the adoption of 'default' minimum rates of inclusion, with oversampling considered. These discussions should inform site selection, and the practical challenges of recruitment and retention should not determine which groups are to be included. We also suggest five policy initiatives to support implementation of the recommendations. Broadly, these are (1) funders need to signal that ethnic diversity is expected, (2) trial teams need access to better data, (3) funders and others need to signal that ethnic diversity means better science, (4) more funding is needed for evaluation, and (5) Good Clinical Practice training should cover ethnic diversity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Agreeing targets for which ethnic groups to involve in a trial is essential but difficult. Our eight recommendations could help to make trials more ethnically diverse if followed, and we suggest five policy initiatives that would create a supportive environment for their implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566274/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08625-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","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

Background: The benefits of randomised trials are not shared equally, and people from ethnic minority groups are a key constituency under-served by clinical research and clinical care. The STRIDE project aimed to give trialists practical information about how to decide which ethnic groups should be in their trials, and at what proportion.

Methods: We considered trials in six clinical areas: cancer, cardiovascular, diabetes, maternal health, mental health, and smoking cessation. We created a summary for each, including participants-intervention-comparators-outcomes, and data on disease prevalence by ethnicity. These were discussed with panels with clinical expertise, trial and methodology expertise, lived experience, funding, and experience of working with and on behalf of ethnic communities. For each trial, we asked panel members to decide which ethnic groups should have been involved and at what proportion.

Results: We discussed 23 trials with 40 individual panel members. Panels found our questions difficult to answer. The lack of publicly available data on prevalence by ethnicity was central to this. Where data were available, decision-making was easier but not simple. The discussions led to eight STRIDE recommendations. We recommend that discussions involve diverse teams and that discussions need time, with access to the best available data. In the absence of data or consensus, we recommend the adoption of 'default' minimum rates of inclusion, with oversampling considered. These discussions should inform site selection, and the practical challenges of recruitment and retention should not determine which groups are to be included. We also suggest five policy initiatives to support implementation of the recommendations. Broadly, these are (1) funders need to signal that ethnic diversity is expected, (2) trial teams need access to better data, (3) funders and others need to signal that ethnic diversity means better science, (4) more funding is needed for evaluation, and (5) Good Clinical Practice training should cover ethnic diversity.

Conclusions: Agreeing targets for which ethnic groups to involve in a trial is essential but difficult. Our eight recommendations could help to make trials more ethnically diverse if followed, and we suggest five policy initiatives that would create a supportive environment for their implementation.

试验团队应如何决定试验中种族群体的比例和多样性?
背景:随机试验带来的益处并不是均等的,而少数民族群体是临床研究和临床护理服务不足的一个主要群体。STRIDE 项目旨在为试验人员提供实用信息,帮助他们决定在试验中应纳入哪些少数民族群体,以及他们所占的比例是多少:我们考虑了六个临床领域的试验:癌症、心血管、糖尿病、孕产妇健康、心理健康和戒烟。我们为每项试验编写了一份摘要,包括参与者-干预措施-比较者-结果,以及按种族划分的疾病流行率数据。我们与具有临床专业知识、试验和方法专业知识、生活经验、资金以及与少数民族社区合作和代表少数民族社区工作经验的专家小组讨论了这些内容。对于每项试验,我们都要求专家组成员决定哪些种族群体应该参与,参与比例是多少:我们与 40 位专家组成员讨论了 23 项试验。专家小组认为我们的问题很难回答。这主要是因为缺乏按种族划分的公开数据。在有数据的情况下,决策会容易一些,但并不简单。通过讨论,我们提出了八项 STRIDE 建议。我们建议让不同的团队参与讨论,讨论需要时间,并需要获得现有的最佳数据。在缺乏数据或无法达成共识的情况下,我们建议采用 "默认 "的最低纳入率,并考虑过度采样。这些讨论应为选址提供参考,而不应由招募和保留的实际困难来决定纳入哪些群体。我们还提出了五项政策措施,以支持建议的实施。概括地说,这五项政策措施是:(1)资助者需要发出信号,表明种族多样性是众望所归;(2)试验团队需要获得更好的数据;(3)资助者和其他方面需要发出信号,表明种族多样性意味着更好的科学;(4)需要更多资金用于评估;(5)良好临床实践培训应涵盖种族多样性:结论:商定让哪些种族群体参与试验的目标至关重要,但却很困难。我们提出了五项政策措施,为这些建议的实施创造有利环境。
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
Trials
Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
966
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that will encompass all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials. Trials will experiment with, and then refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these will be included). We believe this represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials. Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.
×
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