Reducing inequalities through greater diversity in clinical trials – As important for medical devices as for drugs and therapeutics

IF 1.4 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Laurence S.J. Roope , Jessica Walsh , Maddie Welland , Gabrielle Samuel , Heidi Johansen-Berg , Anna C. Nobre , Stuart Clare , Helen Higham , Jon Campbell , Tim Denison , Karla L. Miller , Seena Fazel , Matthew L. Costa , Andrew Farmer , Marian Knight , Rachel Taylor , Lorna R. Henderson , Angeli Vaid , John Geddes , Vasiliki Kiparoglou , Philip M. Clarke
{"title":"Reducing inequalities through greater diversity in clinical trials – As important for medical devices as for drugs and therapeutics","authors":"Laurence S.J. Roope ,&nbsp;Jessica Walsh ,&nbsp;Maddie Welland ,&nbsp;Gabrielle Samuel ,&nbsp;Heidi Johansen-Berg ,&nbsp;Anna C. Nobre ,&nbsp;Stuart Clare ,&nbsp;Helen Higham ,&nbsp;Jon Campbell ,&nbsp;Tim Denison ,&nbsp;Karla L. Miller ,&nbsp;Seena Fazel ,&nbsp;Matthew L. Costa ,&nbsp;Andrew Farmer ,&nbsp;Marian Knight ,&nbsp;Rachel Taylor ,&nbsp;Lorna R. Henderson ,&nbsp;Angeli Vaid ,&nbsp;John Geddes ,&nbsp;Vasiliki Kiparoglou ,&nbsp;Philip M. Clarke","doi":"10.1016/j.conctc.2025.101467","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In medicine and public health, the randomised controlled trial (RCT) is generally considered the key generator of ‘gold standard’ evidence. However, basic and clinical research and trials are often unrepresentative of real-world populations. Recruiting insufficiently diverse cohorts of participants in trials (e.g. in terms of socioeconomic status, racial and ethnic background, or sex and gender) may not only overstate the general effectiveness of a technology; it may also actively increase health inequalities. We highlight some general issues in this domain, before discussing several specific illustrative examples in the context of medical devices. High quality evidence on factors that would improve trial recruitment is extremely limited. There is a clear need for research on candidate strategies for improving recruitment of under-represented groups in RCTs. These could include, for example, offering various forms of financial incentives; non-monetary incentives, such as preferential access to the technologies that are being tested if they are found to be effective; and various types of informational messages and nudges; as well as involvement of community partners and champions in the recruitment process. Ideally, recruitment practices should ultimately be based on evidence generated from RCTs. Studies Within a Trial (SWAT), where randomised experiments are built into the actual recruitment processes in RCTs, are an ideal way to gain this evidence. SWAT studies are seeing an increase in traction, as indicated by funding streams in bodies such as the UK-based NIHR. Making greater funding available for studies of this kind is needed to improve the evidence base on how best to improve diversity in trial recruitment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37937,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","volume":"45 ","pages":"Article 101467"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865425000419","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In medicine and public health, the randomised controlled trial (RCT) is generally considered the key generator of ‘gold standard’ evidence. However, basic and clinical research and trials are often unrepresentative of real-world populations. Recruiting insufficiently diverse cohorts of participants in trials (e.g. in terms of socioeconomic status, racial and ethnic background, or sex and gender) may not only overstate the general effectiveness of a technology; it may also actively increase health inequalities. We highlight some general issues in this domain, before discussing several specific illustrative examples in the context of medical devices. High quality evidence on factors that would improve trial recruitment is extremely limited. There is a clear need for research on candidate strategies for improving recruitment of under-represented groups in RCTs. These could include, for example, offering various forms of financial incentives; non-monetary incentives, such as preferential access to the technologies that are being tested if they are found to be effective; and various types of informational messages and nudges; as well as involvement of community partners and champions in the recruitment process. Ideally, recruitment practices should ultimately be based on evidence generated from RCTs. Studies Within a Trial (SWAT), where randomised experiments are built into the actual recruitment processes in RCTs, are an ideal way to gain this evidence. SWAT studies are seeing an increase in traction, as indicated by funding streams in bodies such as the UK-based NIHR. Making greater funding available for studies of this kind is needed to improve the evidence base on how best to improve diversity in trial recruitment.
通过增加临床试验的多样性来减少不平等现象——对医疗设备和药物和治疗方法同样重要
在医学和公共卫生领域,随机对照试验(RCT)通常被认为是“黄金标准”证据的关键来源。然而,基础和临床研究和试验往往不能代表现实世界的人群。在试验中招募不够多样化的参与者(例如,在社会经济地位、种族和民族背景或性别方面)不仅可能夸大了一项技术的总体有效性;它还可能积极地加剧保健不平等。在讨论医疗设备背景下的几个具体说明性示例之前,我们将重点介绍该领域的一些一般问题。关于可改善试验招募的因素的高质量证据极为有限。显然有必要研究候选人策略,以改善随机对照试验中代表性不足群体的招募。这些措施可以包括,例如,提供各种形式的财政奖励;非金钱奖励,例如,如果发现正在试验的技术是有效的,可以优先获得这些技术;以及各种类型的信息信息和提示;以及社区合作伙伴和支持者在招聘过程中的参与。理想情况下,招募实践最终应该基于随机对照试验产生的证据。在随机对照试验(RCTs)中,随机实验被纳入实际的招募过程,这是获得这一证据的理想方式。正如英国国立卫生研究院等机构的资金流所表明的那样,SWAT研究的吸引力正在增加。需要为这类研究提供更多的资金,以改善关于如何最好地改善试验招募多样性的证据基础。
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
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
146
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is an international peer reviewed open access journal that publishes articles pertaining to all aspects of clinical trials, including, but not limited to, design, conduct, analysis, regulation and ethics. Manuscripts submitted should appeal to a readership drawn from a wide range of disciplines including medicine, life science, pharmaceutical science, biostatistics, epidemiology, computer science, management science, behavioral science, and bioethics. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is unique in that it is outside the confines of disease specifications, and it strives to increase the transparency of medical research and reduce publication bias by publishing scientifically valid original research findings irrespective of their perceived importance, significance or impact. Both randomized and non-randomized trials are within the scope of the Journal. Some common topics include trial design rationale and methods, operational methodologies and challenges, and positive and negative trial results. In addition to original research, the Journal also welcomes other types of communications including, but are not limited to, methodology reviews, perspectives and discussions. Through timely dissemination of advances in clinical trials, the goal of Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is to serve as a platform to enhance the communication and collaboration within the global clinical trials community that ultimately advances this field of research for the benefit of patients.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信