Abstract
BackgroundWithout inclusion of diverse research participants, it is challenging to understand how study findings will translate into the real world. Despite this, a lack of inclusion of those from under-served groups in research is a prevailing problem due to multi-faceted barriers acting at multiple levels. Therefore, we rapidly reviewed international published literature, in relation to clinical trials, on barriers relating to inclusion, and evidence of approaches that are effective in overcoming these.MethodsA rapid literature review was conducted searching PubMed for peer-reviewed articles that discussed barriers to inclusion or strategies to improve inclusion in clinical trial research published between 2010 and 2021. Grey literature articles were excluded.ResultsSeventy-two eligible articles were included. The main barriers identified were language and communication, lack of trust, access to trials, eligibility criteria, attitudes and beliefs, lack of knowledge around clinical trials, and logistical and practical issues. In relation to evidence-based strategies and enablers, two key themes arose: [1] a multi-faceted approach is essential [2]; no single strategy was universally effective either within or between trials. The key evidence-based strategies identified were cultural competency training, community partnerships, personalised approach, multilingual materials and staff, communication-specific strategies, increasing understanding and trust, and tackling logistical barriers.ConclusionsMany of the barriers relating to inclusion are the same as those that impact trial design and healthcare delivery generally. However, the presentation of these barriers among different under-served groups may be unique to each population’s particular circumstances, background, and needs. Based on the literature, we make 15 recommendations that, if implemented, may help improve inclusion within clinical trials and clinical research more generally. The three main recommendations include improving cultural competency and sensitivity of all clinical trial staff through training and ongoing personal development, the need to establish a diverse community advisory panel for ongoing input into the research process, and increasing recruitment of staff from under-served groups. Implementation of these recommendations may help improve representation of under-served groups in clinical trials which would improve the external validity of associated findings.
Highlights
Without inclusion of diverse research participants, it is challenging to understand how study findings will translate into the real world
Without participants from a broad range of backgrounds, it is not possible to understand how study findings will translate into real-world application, and this is true for clinical trials
Summary of main findings This rapid review aimed to synthesise the international published literature on studies that consider the specific barriers in relation to inclusion in clinical trials, and evidence of approaches that have been effective in overcoming these
Summary
Without inclusion of diverse research participants, it is challenging to understand how study findings will translate into the real world. A lack of inclusion of those from under-served groups in research is a prevailing problem due to multi-faceted barriers acting at multiple levels. Without participants from a broad range of backgrounds (age, gender, ethnicity, comorbidities), it is not possible to understand how study findings will translate into real-world application, and this is true for clinical trials. Groups considered under-served [2] in clinical research are heterogenous and are often crudely considered in terms of basic characteristics, such as ethnicity, disability, or age. General examples of under-served groups are often defined by demographic, social, or economic factors; health factors; and/or disease-specific characteristics [2]. Despite the ethical and scientific implications of a lack of inclusion in research, it remains a widespread issue [3,4,5,6], as demonstrated in recent COVID-19-specific trials [7]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.