Evidence mapPaperPMID 39543747Full record

ArticleTrials2024

How should trial teams make decisions about the proportions and diversity of the ethnic groups in their trial?

Shaun Treweek, Katie Gillies, Miles D Witham, Declan Devane, Kamlesh Khunti, Peter Bower, Adwoa Parker, Irene Soulsby, Bārbala Ostrovska, Sarah Prowse and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Shaun TreweekAberdeen Centre for Evaluation, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK. streweek@mac.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7239-7241
Katie GilliesAberdeen Centre for Evaluation, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Miles D WithamAGE Research Group, Faculty of Medical Sciences, NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust and, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Declan DevaneHRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Kamlesh KhuntiDiabetes Research Centre, Centre for Ethnic Health Research, NIHR ARC East Midlands, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Peter BowerNIHR ARC Greater Manchester, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Adwoa ParkerYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Irene SoulsbyYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Bārbala OstrovskaAberdeen Centre for Evaluation, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Sarah ProwseAberdeen Centre for Evaluation, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Heidi GreenCOUCH Health, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe benefits of randomised trials are not shared equally, and people from ethnic minority groups are a key constituency under-served by clinical research and clinical care. The STRIDE project aimed to give trialists practical information about how to decide which ethnic groups should be in their trials, and at what proportion.

methodsWe considered trials in six clinical areas: cancer, cardiovascular, diabetes, maternal health, mental health, and smoking cessation. We created a summary for each, including participants-intervention-comparators-outcomes, and data on disease prevalence by ethnicity. These were discussed with panels with clinical expertise, trial and methodology expertise, lived experience, funding, and experience of working with and on behalf of ethnic communities. For each trial, we asked panel members to decide which ethnic groups should have been involved and at what proportion.

resultsWe discussed 23 trials with 40 individual panel members. Panels found our questions difficult to answer. The lack of publicly available data on prevalence by ethnicity was central to this. Where data were available, decision-making was easier but not simple. The discussions led to eight STRIDE recommendations. We recommend that discussions involve diverse teams and that discussions need time, with access to the best available data. In the absence of data or consensus, we recommend the adoption of 'default' minimum rates of inclusion, with oversampling considered. These discussions should inform site selection, and the practical challenges of recruitment and retention should not determine which groups are to be included. We also suggest five policy initiatives to support implementation of the recommendations. Broadly, these are (1) funders need to signal that ethnic diversity is expected, (2) trial teams need access to better data, (3) funders and others need to signal that ethnic diversity means better science, (4) more funding is needed for evaluation, and (5) Good Clinical Practice training should cover ethnic diversity.

conclusionsAgreeing targets for which ethnic groups to involve in a trial is essential but difficult. Our eight recommendations could help to make trials more ethnically diverse if followed, and we suggest five policy initiatives that would create a supportive environment for their implementation.

Indexed as

Cultural DiversityPatient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicConsensusCultural CharacteristicsEthnic and Racial MinoritiesHumansResearch DesignResearch PersonnelSmoking CessationStakeholder ParticipationDiversity and inclusionEquityEthnicityRecruitmentRetention

Identifiers

PMID39543747
PMCPMC11566274

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.