将残疾人排除在临床研究之外:资格标准缺乏明确性和合理性。

Willyanne DeCormier Plosky, Ari Ne'eman, Benjamin C Silverman, David H Strauss, Leslie P Francis, Michael A Stein, Barbara E Bierer
{"title":"将残疾人排除在临床研究之外:资格标准缺乏明确性和合理性。","authors":"Willyanne DeCormier Plosky,&nbsp;Ari Ne'eman,&nbsp;Benjamin C Silverman,&nbsp;David H Strauss,&nbsp;Leslie P Francis,&nbsp;Michael A Stein,&nbsp;Barbara E Bierer","doi":"10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The exclusion of people with disabilities from clinical research without appropriate justification is discriminatory, is counter to federal regulations and research guidelines, and limits study generalizability. This matter is understudied, and data on the disability status of trial participants are rarely collected or reported. We analyzed ninety-seven recent interventional protocols in four therapeutic areas registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Eighty-five percent of protocols allowed broad investigator discretion to determine eligibility, whereas only 18 percent explicitly permitted people with disabilities to use forms of support (such as supported decision making or assistive devices) to facilitate study participation. Eligibility criteria affecting people with disabilities included exclusions for psychiatric (68 percent), substance use (62 percent), HIV or hepatitis (53 percent), cognitive or intellectual (42 percent), visual (34 percent), hearing (10 percent), mobility (9 percent), long-term care (6 percent), and speech and communication (3 percent) disability-related domains. Documented justification was provided for only 24 percent of these exclusions. We recommend greater scrutiny of study eligibility criteria, scientific or ethical justification of exclusions, and accessible study design.</p>","PeriodicalId":300542,"journal":{"name":"Health affairs (Project Hope)","volume":" ","pages":"1423-1432"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Excluding People With Disabilities From Clinical Research: Eligibility Criteria Lack Clarity And Justification.\",\"authors\":\"Willyanne DeCormier Plosky,&nbsp;Ari Ne'eman,&nbsp;Benjamin C Silverman,&nbsp;David H Strauss,&nbsp;Leslie P Francis,&nbsp;Michael A Stein,&nbsp;Barbara E Bierer\",\"doi\":\"10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00520\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The exclusion of people with disabilities from clinical research without appropriate justification is discriminatory, is counter to federal regulations and research guidelines, and limits study generalizability. This matter is understudied, and data on the disability status of trial participants are rarely collected or reported. We analyzed ninety-seven recent interventional protocols in four therapeutic areas registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Eighty-five percent of protocols allowed broad investigator discretion to determine eligibility, whereas only 18 percent explicitly permitted people with disabilities to use forms of support (such as supported decision making or assistive devices) to facilitate study participation. Eligibility criteria affecting people with disabilities included exclusions for psychiatric (68 percent), substance use (62 percent), HIV or hepatitis (53 percent), cognitive or intellectual (42 percent), visual (34 percent), hearing (10 percent), mobility (9 percent), long-term care (6 percent), and speech and communication (3 percent) disability-related domains. Documented justification was provided for only 24 percent of these exclusions. We recommend greater scrutiny of study eligibility criteria, scientific or ethical justification of exclusions, and accessible study design.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":300542,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health affairs (Project Hope)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1423-1432\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health affairs (Project Hope)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00520\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health affairs (Project Hope)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00520","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

在没有适当理由的情况下将残疾人排除在临床研究之外是歧视性的,违反了联邦法规和研究指南,并限制了研究的普遍性。这一问题尚未得到充分研究,关于试验参与者残疾状况的数据很少被收集或报告。我们分析了在ClinicalTrials.gov上注册的四个治疗领域的97个最近的介入方案。85%的研究方案允许研究者有广泛的自由裁量权来决定是否合格,而只有18%明确允许残疾人使用支持形式(如辅助决策或辅助设备)来促进研究参与。影响残疾人的资格标准包括排除精神病(68%)、药物使用(62%)、艾滋病毒或肝炎(53%)、认知或智力(42%)、视觉(34%)、听力(10%)、行动能力(9%)、长期护理(6%)以及言语和沟通(3%)残疾相关领域。在这些排除中,只有24%提供了书面证明。我们建议对研究资格标准、排除的科学或伦理理由以及可访问的研究设计进行更严格的审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Excluding People With Disabilities From Clinical Research: Eligibility Criteria Lack Clarity And Justification.

The exclusion of people with disabilities from clinical research without appropriate justification is discriminatory, is counter to federal regulations and research guidelines, and limits study generalizability. This matter is understudied, and data on the disability status of trial participants are rarely collected or reported. We analyzed ninety-seven recent interventional protocols in four therapeutic areas registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Eighty-five percent of protocols allowed broad investigator discretion to determine eligibility, whereas only 18 percent explicitly permitted people with disabilities to use forms of support (such as supported decision making or assistive devices) to facilitate study participation. Eligibility criteria affecting people with disabilities included exclusions for psychiatric (68 percent), substance use (62 percent), HIV or hepatitis (53 percent), cognitive or intellectual (42 percent), visual (34 percent), hearing (10 percent), mobility (9 percent), long-term care (6 percent), and speech and communication (3 percent) disability-related domains. Documented justification was provided for only 24 percent of these exclusions. We recommend greater scrutiny of study eligibility criteria, scientific or ethical justification of exclusions, and accessible study design.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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