Trial reportTrials2022
Evaluation of cultural competency in a South African cluster randomised controlled trial: lessons learned for trial reporting standards.
Trial report in Trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFailure to consider relevant cultural, ethnic and diversity parameters (and the intersection between these parameters) during trial protocol development and trial conduct may negatively impact recruitment, intervention development and delivery, and participant adherence and retention, potentially reducing overall internal validity. This case study aimed to evaluate the utility and comparability between the 9-item Gibbs Framework to measure cultural competency and the GRIPP-2(Short Form (SF)) 5-point checklist to assess patient and public involvement in the context of a complex clinical trial conducted in an African setting.
methodsWe identified and collated all relevant publications, source and procedural data related to the trial and integrated the documents into a dynamic trial timeline. Two independent investigators applied and scored the Gibbs Framework and the GRIPP-2(SF) checklist to the four publications arising from the trial, noting functionality and comparability between tools. Where cultural competency was not met, a third investigator screened all procedural and source data and identified if cultural competency had been achieved but not reported in the publications, or if the trial had not met appropriate cultural competency based on the documentation.
resultsApplication of the Gibbs Framework found that the trial scored '2' for seven of the nine Gibbs items, indicating full cultural competency for those questions. The Framework indicated that the trial research question was not driven by the articulated needs of patients, and neither were patients, caregivers and clinical providers involved in the development of the intervention. Comparability with the GRIPP-2(SF) checklist showed that the Gibbs performed better on evaluation of partnerships with the community, identification of culturally competent data sources and target populations, and appointment of trial staff in an inclusive manner.
conclusionsComprehensive evaluation of the trial's cultural competency required scrutiny of both published manuscripts and source and procedural data, suggesting that there is a gap in current trial reporting standards with respect to cultural competence.
trial registrationPACTR201610001825403. Registered on 17 October 2016.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.