Samuel Byiringiro, Juliana K Garcia, Nsenga Farrell, Bunmi Ogungbe, Rifath Ara Alam Barsha, Hailey N Miller, Evans Whitaker, Paul Wang, William E Rosa, Barbara E Bierer, Cheryl R Himmelfarb, Erin D Michos, Koen De Lombaert, Maya Berdichesky, Stephan Busque, Latha Palaniappan, Eldrin Lewis, Fatima Rodriguez, Hannah Valantine
{"title":"Advocating for collaboration among key partners to promote diversity in clinical studies amid policy challenges in the United States of America.","authors":"Samuel Byiringiro, Juliana K Garcia, Nsenga Farrell, Bunmi Ogungbe, Rifath Ara Alam Barsha, Hailey N Miller, Evans Whitaker, Paul Wang, William E Rosa, Barbara E Bierer, Cheryl R Himmelfarb, Erin D Michos, Koen De Lombaert, Maya Berdichesky, Stephan Busque, Latha Palaniappan, Eldrin Lewis, Fatima Rodriguez, Hannah Valantine","doi":"10.1186/s13063-025-08820-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The lack of diversity in clinical studies has significant ethical and health consequences, limiting the development of effective treatments for diverse populations. Homogeneous participation in clinical studies contributes to health disparities, particularly among historically underrepresented groups in the United States (US). Racial, ethnic, and other minoritized populations have long been excluded from clinical research. In response, the US Congress mandated the National Institutes of Health to assess the impacts of insufficient diversity in clinical studies. Despite efforts by the government, non-profit organizations, and industry players to improve diversity in clinical studies, progress has been slow due to fragmented approaches. For instance, the new US administration (2025) has recently released executive orders which threaten to reverse the progress made in inclusive clinical research. The Stanford Think Tank on Diversity and Equity in Clinical Trials, held in September 2023, brought together key partners across multiple sectors and professions to discuss barriers and explore potential solutions to participation in clinical studies. In this commentary, we discuss the importance of collaborative, inclusive strategies in clinical study design to advance equitable health outcomes for all. Further, we discuss potential implications of the government's dismissal of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives on diverse research participation.</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":"26 1","pages":"117"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11963400/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-025-08820-y","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
The lack of diversity in clinical studies has significant ethical and health consequences, limiting the development of effective treatments for diverse populations. Homogeneous participation in clinical studies contributes to health disparities, particularly among historically underrepresented groups in the United States (US). Racial, ethnic, and other minoritized populations have long been excluded from clinical research. In response, the US Congress mandated the National Institutes of Health to assess the impacts of insufficient diversity in clinical studies. Despite efforts by the government, non-profit organizations, and industry players to improve diversity in clinical studies, progress has been slow due to fragmented approaches. For instance, the new US administration (2025) has recently released executive orders which threaten to reverse the progress made in inclusive clinical research. The Stanford Think Tank on Diversity and Equity in Clinical Trials, held in September 2023, brought together key partners across multiple sectors and professions to discuss barriers and explore potential solutions to participation in clinical studies. In this commentary, we discuss the importance of collaborative, inclusive strategies in clinical study design to advance equitable health outcomes for all. Further, we discuss potential implications of the government's dismissal of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives on diverse research participation.
临床研究缺乏多样性具有重大的伦理和健康后果,限制了针对不同人群的有效治疗方法的发展。临床研究的同质性参与助长了健康差异,特别是在美国历史上代表性不足的群体中。种族、民族和其他少数群体长期以来一直被排除在临床研究之外。作为回应,美国国会授权美国国立卫生研究院(National Institutes of Health)评估临床研究多样性不足的影响。尽管政府、非营利组织和行业参与者努力提高临床研究的多样性,但由于方法分散,进展缓慢。例如,美国新政府(2025年)最近发布的行政命令可能会逆转包容性临床研究方面取得的进展。斯坦福大学临床试验多样性和公平性智库于2023年9月举行,汇集了多个部门和专业的主要合作伙伴,讨论了参与临床研究的障碍,并探索了潜在的解决方案。在这篇评论中,我们讨论了协作、包容策略在临床研究设计中的重要性,以促进所有人的公平健康结果。此外,我们还讨论了政府对多元化、公平和包容倡议的忽视对多元化研究参与的潜在影响。
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.