The Representative Studies Rubric: A Tool for Diversity in Clinical Trials.

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Brian Minalga, Rona Siskind, Russell Campbell, Tyler Adamson, Mary Allegra Cermak, Annet Davis, Eddie D Givens, Molly Dyer, Katie McCarthy, Nicole A Montañez, Rhonda White
{"title":"The Representative Studies Rubric: A Tool for Diversity in Clinical Trials.","authors":"Brian Minalga, Rona Siskind, Russell Campbell, Tyler Adamson, Mary Allegra Cermak, Annet Davis, Eddie D Givens, Molly Dyer, Katie McCarthy, Nicole A Montañez, Rhonda White","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2497753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When clinical trials fail to enroll diverse study populations, a multitude of consequences can occur, including compromised validity and generalizability, safety and efficacy uncertainties, regulatory limitations, widened disparities, distrust in science and medicine, and undermined efforts to address urgent health needs. We developed the Representative Studies Rubric (RSR), a questionnaire that evaluates the extent to which clinical trials are designed to enroll representative study populations with a focus on age, ethnicity, drug use, gender, pregnancy, race, and sex assigned at birth. We used the RSR to conduct an analysis of all active studies in the NIH-funded HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials Networks (Networks) and identified patterns of research practices that may limit the participation of underrepresented populations, with ethical implications. The Networks subsequently formalized the RSR as a required protocol development tool for all future studies to correct exclusionary research practices with the goal to achieve more representative study populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2025.2497753","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When clinical trials fail to enroll diverse study populations, a multitude of consequences can occur, including compromised validity and generalizability, safety and efficacy uncertainties, regulatory limitations, widened disparities, distrust in science and medicine, and undermined efforts to address urgent health needs. We developed the Representative Studies Rubric (RSR), a questionnaire that evaluates the extent to which clinical trials are designed to enroll representative study populations with a focus on age, ethnicity, drug use, gender, pregnancy, race, and sex assigned at birth. We used the RSR to conduct an analysis of all active studies in the NIH-funded HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials Networks (Networks) and identified patterns of research practices that may limit the participation of underrepresented populations, with ethical implications. The Networks subsequently formalized the RSR as a required protocol development tool for all future studies to correct exclusionary research practices with the goal to achieve more representative study populations.

代表性研究标题:临床试验多样性的工具。
当临床试验未能招募到不同的研究人群时,可能会发生多种后果,包括有效性和普遍性受到损害、安全性和有效性不确定、监管限制、差距扩大、对科学和医学的不信任,以及对解决紧急卫生需求的努力受到破坏。我们制定了代表性研究标准(RSR),这是一份问卷,用于评估临床试验的设计程度,以纳入具有代表性的研究人群,重点关注年龄、种族、药物使用、性别、怀孕、种族和出生时的性别。我们使用RSR对美国国立卫生研究院资助的艾滋病毒/艾滋病临床试验网络(网络)中所有正在进行的研究进行了分析,并确定了研究实践的模式,这些模式可能会限制代表性不足人群的参与,并具有伦理意义。网络随后将RSR正式确定为所有未来研究所需的协议开发工具,以纠正排他性研究实践,目标是获得更具代表性的研究人群。
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
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
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