Diversity in decentralized clinical trials: prioritizing inclusion of underrepresented groups.

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Tessa I van Rijssel, Johannes J M van Delden, Bart Lagerwaard, Mira G P Zuidgeest, Ghislaine J M W van Thiel
{"title":"Diversity in decentralized clinical trials: prioritizing inclusion of underrepresented groups.","authors":"Tessa I van Rijssel, Johannes J M van Delden, Bart Lagerwaard, Mira G P Zuidgeest, Ghislaine J M W van Thiel","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01211-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The importance of more diversity of study populations in clinical trials is currently widely acknowledged. Decentralized clinical trial (DCT) approaches are presented as a potential means to broaden diversity by eliminating several barriers to participation. However, the precise meaning of, and objectives related to diversity in DCTs remain unclear. Diversity runs the risk of becoming a 'buzzword': widely acknowledged to be important, yet prone to multiple interpretations and challenging to implement in practice. We argue that the aim of increasing diversity in clinical trials requires clear and well-substantiated specifications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyze the concept of diversity and the ethical requirements surrounding fair participant selection within the context of clinical research, in order to further specify and operationalize the aim of increasing diversity in the context of DCTs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Through analyzing the concept of diversity and ethical requirements for fair participant selection, we propose that diversity should be specified in a way that improves the position of the groups that are currently most underrepresented in the research context. In practice, this entails that, in order to contribute to diversity, the selection of participants should prioritize (i) gaining scientific knowledge on groups for which this is lacking, and (ii) inclusion of underrepresented groups in research when appropriate considering a study's objectives, and risks and benefits.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our analysis facilitates translating the aim of increasing diversity with DCTs to more specific and actionable objectives for recruitment and inclusion. Moreover, it contributes to a further specification of the concept of diversity and fair participant selection in research contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"51"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12020247/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01211-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The importance of more diversity of study populations in clinical trials is currently widely acknowledged. Decentralized clinical trial (DCT) approaches are presented as a potential means to broaden diversity by eliminating several barriers to participation. However, the precise meaning of, and objectives related to diversity in DCTs remain unclear. Diversity runs the risk of becoming a 'buzzword': widely acknowledged to be important, yet prone to multiple interpretations and challenging to implement in practice. We argue that the aim of increasing diversity in clinical trials requires clear and well-substantiated specifications.

Methods: We analyze the concept of diversity and the ethical requirements surrounding fair participant selection within the context of clinical research, in order to further specify and operationalize the aim of increasing diversity in the context of DCTs.

Results: Through analyzing the concept of diversity and ethical requirements for fair participant selection, we propose that diversity should be specified in a way that improves the position of the groups that are currently most underrepresented in the research context. In practice, this entails that, in order to contribute to diversity, the selection of participants should prioritize (i) gaining scientific knowledge on groups for which this is lacking, and (ii) inclusion of underrepresented groups in research when appropriate considering a study's objectives, and risks and benefits.

Conclusions: Our analysis facilitates translating the aim of increasing diversity with DCTs to more specific and actionable objectives for recruitment and inclusion. Moreover, it contributes to a further specification of the concept of diversity and fair participant selection in research contexts.

分散临床试验的多样性:优先纳入代表性不足的群体。
背景:临床试验中研究人群多样性的重要性目前已得到广泛认可。分散临床试验(DCT)方法是一种潜在的手段,通过消除参与的几个障碍来扩大多样性。然而,dct多样性的确切含义和相关目标仍不清楚。多样性有可能成为一个“流行语”:被广泛认可的重要性,但容易有多种解释,在实践中难以实施。我们认为,增加临床试验多样性的目的需要明确和充分证实的规范。方法:在临床研究的背景下,我们分析了多样性的概念和公平参与者选择的伦理要求,以进一步明确和实施在dct背景下增加多样性的目标。结果:通过分析多样性的概念和公平参与者选择的伦理要求,我们提出多样性应该以一种改善目前在研究背景下代表性最不足的群体的地位的方式来指定。在实践中,这意味着,为了促进多样性,参与者的选择应优先考虑(i)获得缺乏科学知识的群体的科学知识,以及(ii)考虑到研究的目标、风险和利益,在适当的情况下将代表性不足的群体纳入研究。结论:我们的分析有助于将dct增加多样性的目标转化为更具体和可操作的招聘和包容目标。此外,它有助于在研究背景下进一步规范多样性和公平参与者选择的概念。
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
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
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