Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40009138›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025

Promoting Diversity through an Understanding of Barriers and Drivers for Inclusive Clinical Trials.

Annick de Bruin, Jasmine Masullo, Shalome Sine, Kenneth Getz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Annick de BruinThe Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation, Boston, MA, USA.
Jasmine MasulloThe Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation, Boston, MA, USA.
Shalome SineThe Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation, Boston, MA, USA. ssine@ciscrp.org.
Kenneth GetzThe Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceRacially and ethnically diverse, equitable representation among clinical trial participants is important for enhancing the drug development process and promoting equitable healthcare outcomes.

objectiveTo understand the barriers and drivers for inclusive clinical trials, focusing on the attitudes, perceptions, experiences, and challenges faced by underrepresented populations.

designAn online questionnaire was administered online from April to June 2023 and involved 12,017 respondents from 54 countries. This survey utilized a convenience sampling strategy. Statistical analysis was performed to compare responses among racial and ethnic groups.

settingThe study was conducted globally. Survey respondents were recruited through various patient recruitment organizations, patient advocacy groups, and contract research organizations. RESPONDENTS: Adults 18 years or older who received an email or had online access were eligible to participate. Racial and ethnic composition included White (81%), Hispanic/Latino (15%), Black/African American (6%), Asian (6%), and other ethnicities. EXPOSURE(S): Respondents were asked about their perceptions, concerns and experiences related to clinical research access and participation. MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S): Key outcomes included barriers to clinical research participation, factors influencing trust in pharmaceutical companies and past experiences.

resultsBarriers to clinical research participation varied among ethnic groups. Asian respondents cited concerns about time off work (22%) and time required to participate (19%) more frequently as compared to White respondents (7% and 7%, respectively; p < 0.05). Hispanics expressed higher concerns about time off work (15%) and receiving placebo (10%) as compared to Non-Hispanics (8% and 5%, respectively, p < 0.05). Black and Hispanic respondents placed higher importance on diversity in staff compared to White and non-Hispanic respondents (B: 32%; W: 12%; Hispanic: 22%; Non-Hispanic: 13% p < 0.05). Black, Asian, and Hispanic respondents reported higher levels of disruption in participation related to technology use (Black: 31%; Hispanic: 30%; Asian: 29%) and completing study requirements at home (Black: 32%; Hispanic: 30%; Asian: 26%) as compared to White (13%, 15%; p < 0.05%) and non-Hispanic respondents (14%, 17%; p < 0.05).

conclusionsThe findings highlight the need to address barriers to diversity in clinical trials and improve trial experiences of underrepresented communities, facilitating design of more inclusive and patient-centered trials.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicCultural DiversityPatient SelectionAdultEthnicityFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRacial GroupsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID40009138
PMCPMC12018620

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.