Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38017503›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2023

Equality, diversity, and inclusion in oncology clinical trials: an audit of essential documents and data collection against INCLUDE under-served groups in a UK academic trial setting.

Dhrusti Patel, Lucy Kilburn, Lisa Fox, Emma Hall, Judith Bliss, Rebecca Lewis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
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

6 authors.

Dhrusti PatelClinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Lucy KilburnClinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Lisa FoxClinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Emma HallClinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Judith BlissClinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Rebecca LewisClinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. Rebecca.lewis@icr.ac.uk.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25351Cancer Research UK C1491/A25351
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical trials should be as inclusive as possible to facilitate equitable access to research and better reflect the population towards which any intervention is aimed. Informed by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Innovations in Clinical Trial Design and Delivery for the Under-served (INCLUDE) guidance, we audited oncology trials conducted by the Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research, London (ICR-CTSU) to identify whether essential documents were overtly excluding any groups and whether sufficient data were collected to assess diversity of trial participants from groups suggested by INCLUDE as under-served by research in the UK.

methodsThirty cancer clinical trials managed by ICR-CTSU and approved between 2011-2021 were audited. The first ethics approved version of each trial's protocol, patient information sheet, and patient completed questionnaire, together with the first case report forms (CRFs) version were reviewed. A range of items aligned with the INCLUDE under-served groups were assessed, including age, sex and gender, socio-economic and health factors. The scope did not cover trial processes in participating hospitals.

resultsData relating to participants' age, ethnic group and health status were well collected and no upper age limit was specified in any trials' eligibility criteria. 23/30 (77%) information sheets used at least one gendered term to address patients. Most CRFs did not specify whether they were collecting sex or gender and only included male or female categories. The median reading age for information sheets was 15-16 years (IQR: 14-15 - 16-17). Socio-economic factors were not routinely collected and not commonly mentioned in trial protocols.

conclusionsNo systemic issues were identified in protocols which would explicitly prevent any under-served group from participating. Areas for improvement include reducing use of gendered words and improving readability of patient information. The challenge of fully assessing adequate inclusion of under-served populations remains, as socio-economic factors are not routinely collected because they fall beyond the data generally required for protocol-specified trial endpoint assessments. This audit has highlighted the need to agree and standardise demographic data collection to permit adequate monitoring of the under-served groups identified by the NIHR.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsAdolescentClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHospitalsHumansLondonMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomData collectionDiversityEqualityInclusivityNIHR INCLUDE frameworkOncology clinical trials

Identifiers

PMID38017503
PMCPMC10685485

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.