解决数字临床试验中的卫生不公平:艾滋病毒研究领域的挑战和解决方案综述。

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Andrea L Wirtz, Carmen H Logie, Lawrence Mbuagbaw
{"title":"解决数字临床试验中的卫生不公平:艾滋病毒研究领域的挑战和解决方案综述。","authors":"Andrea L Wirtz,&nbsp;Carmen H Logie,&nbsp;Lawrence Mbuagbaw","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxac008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinical trials are considered the gold standard for establishing efficacy of health interventions, thus determining which interventions are brought to scale in health care and public health programs. Digital clinical trials, broadly defined as trials that have partial to full integration of technology across implementation, interventions, and/or data collection, are valued for increased efficiencies as well as testing of digitally delivered interventions. Although recent reviews have described the advantages and disadvantages of and provided recommendations for improving scientific rigor in the conduct of digital clinical trials, few to none have investigated how digital clinical trials address the digital divide, whether they are equitably accessible, and if trial outcomes are potentially beneficial only to those with optimal and consistent access to technology. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), among other health conditions, disproportionately affects socially and economically marginalized populations, raising questions of whether interventions found to be efficacious in digital clinical trials and subsequently brought to scale will sufficiently and consistently reach and provide benefit to these populations. We reviewed examples from HIV research from across geographic settings to describe how digital clinical trials can either reproduce or mitigate health inequities via the design and implementation of the digital clinical trials and, ultimately, the programs that result. We discuss how digital clinical trials can be intentionally designed to prevent inequities, monitor ongoing access and utilization, and assess for differential impacts among subgroups with diverse technology access and use. These findings can be generalized to many other health fields and are practical considerations for donors, investigators, reviewers, and ethics committees engaged in digital clinical trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":50510,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10362940/pdf/mxac008.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Addressing Health Inequities in Digital Clinical Trials: A Review of Challenges and Solutions From the Field of HIV Research.\",\"authors\":\"Andrea L Wirtz,&nbsp;Carmen H Logie,&nbsp;Lawrence Mbuagbaw\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/epirev/mxac008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Clinical trials are considered the gold standard for establishing efficacy of health interventions, thus determining which interventions are brought to scale in health care and public health programs. Digital clinical trials, broadly defined as trials that have partial to full integration of technology across implementation, interventions, and/or data collection, are valued for increased efficiencies as well as testing of digitally delivered interventions. Although recent reviews have described the advantages and disadvantages of and provided recommendations for improving scientific rigor in the conduct of digital clinical trials, few to none have investigated how digital clinical trials address the digital divide, whether they are equitably accessible, and if trial outcomes are potentially beneficial only to those with optimal and consistent access to technology. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), among other health conditions, disproportionately affects socially and economically marginalized populations, raising questions of whether interventions found to be efficacious in digital clinical trials and subsequently brought to scale will sufficiently and consistently reach and provide benefit to these populations. We reviewed examples from HIV research from across geographic settings to describe how digital clinical trials can either reproduce or mitigate health inequities via the design and implementation of the digital clinical trials and, ultimately, the programs that result. We discuss how digital clinical trials can be intentionally designed to prevent inequities, monitor ongoing access and utilization, and assess for differential impacts among subgroups with diverse technology access and use. These findings can be generalized to many other health fields and are practical considerations for donors, investigators, reviewers, and ethics committees engaged in digital clinical trials.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50510,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epidemiologic Reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10362940/pdf/mxac008.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epidemiologic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxac008\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiologic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxac008","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

临床试验被认为是确定卫生干预措施有效性的黄金标准,从而确定哪些干预措施在卫生保健和公共卫生计划中具有规模。数字化临床试验被广泛定义为在实施、干预和/或数据收集过程中部分或完全整合技术的试验,其价值在于提高效率以及测试数字化交付的干预措施。尽管最近的评论描述了数字临床试验的优点和缺点,并为提高进行数字临床试验的科学严谨性提供了建议,但很少或根本没有调查数字临床试验如何解决数字鸿沟,它们是否公平可及,以及试验结果是否只对那些具有最佳和持续获取技术的人有益。除其他健康状况外,人类免疫缺陷病毒(艾滋病毒)对社会和经济边缘化人群的影响尤为严重,这就提出了以下问题:在数字临床试验中发现的有效干预措施并随后大规模推广,是否能够充分和持续地惠及这些人群并为其带来益处。我们回顾了来自不同地理环境的艾滋病毒研究的例子,以描述数字临床试验如何通过数字临床试验的设计和实施以及最终产生的项目来再现或减轻健康不平等。我们讨论了如何有意识地设计数字临床试验,以防止不公平,监测正在进行的获取和利用,并评估不同技术获取和使用的亚组之间的差异影响。这些发现可以推广到许多其他健康领域,并且是从事数字临床试验的捐助者、研究者、审稿人和伦理委员会的实际考虑因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Addressing Health Inequities in Digital Clinical Trials: A Review of Challenges and Solutions From the Field of HIV Research.

Clinical trials are considered the gold standard for establishing efficacy of health interventions, thus determining which interventions are brought to scale in health care and public health programs. Digital clinical trials, broadly defined as trials that have partial to full integration of technology across implementation, interventions, and/or data collection, are valued for increased efficiencies as well as testing of digitally delivered interventions. Although recent reviews have described the advantages and disadvantages of and provided recommendations for improving scientific rigor in the conduct of digital clinical trials, few to none have investigated how digital clinical trials address the digital divide, whether they are equitably accessible, and if trial outcomes are potentially beneficial only to those with optimal and consistent access to technology. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), among other health conditions, disproportionately affects socially and economically marginalized populations, raising questions of whether interventions found to be efficacious in digital clinical trials and subsequently brought to scale will sufficiently and consistently reach and provide benefit to these populations. We reviewed examples from HIV research from across geographic settings to describe how digital clinical trials can either reproduce or mitigate health inequities via the design and implementation of the digital clinical trials and, ultimately, the programs that result. We discuss how digital clinical trials can be intentionally designed to prevent inequities, monitor ongoing access and utilization, and assess for differential impacts among subgroups with diverse technology access and use. These findings can be generalized to many other health fields and are practical considerations for donors, investigators, reviewers, and ethics committees engaged in digital clinical trials.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Epidemiologic Reviews
Epidemiologic Reviews 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: Epidemiologic Reviews is a leading review journal in public health. Published once a year, issues collect review articles on a particular subject. Recent issues have focused on The Obesity Epidemic, Epidemiologic Research on Health Disparities, and Epidemiologic Approaches to Global Health.
×
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