ReviewTrials2025
Improving participation of culturally and linguistically diverse participants in clinical trials: an expert consultation.
Review in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Translation approaches to support systemic anti-cancer therapy consent for individuals with limited English proficiency.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Trial
- Multilingual Video Education for Hospitalized Patients With Myocardial Infarction (EDUCATE-MI): Single-Arm Implementation Study.JMIR cardio · 2026Article
- Planning and conducting cross-cultural qualitative research: a methodological framework and resources for health researchers.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2025Review
- Racial, Ethnic, Sex, and Gender Equity for Inclusive Interstitial Lung Disease Research: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiversity and inclusivity have become increasingly important in the design and implementation of clinical trials. However, those from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds are still underrepresented in the research landscape. Failing to include diverse participants can result in treatments and interventions that are not accessible to all who need them. Researchers in Australia and internationally are innovating new ways to address the barriers to increased participation of people from CALD backgrounds in clinical trials. CONSULTATION AND REVIEW: We conducted a brief review, augmented by consultation with experts who have engaged CALD communities in research and who hold positions in diversity and inclusivity improvement. Through this, we identified three pillars that must be considered in all areas of design and implementation of trials and research projects: co-design the process of engagement, build trust, invest the time. We also identified seven areas for action where organisations and research teams can focus their activities to improve inclusion and diversity: toolkits and study design, building trust with CALD communities, education and awareness, staff training and communication, language and consent, logistics, resources: funding and time. Importantly, accurate collection of data related to CALD status is also needed to improve inclusivity.
conclusionExperts provided valuable insights from their own experiences of the most effective methods for improving the inclusion of CALD communities in clinical trials. Early and thorough planning, building long-term, mutually beneficial relationships with CALD communities and top-down changes to funding are all necessary elements to creating effective, sustainable improvements to the diversity of clinical trials.
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.