Scholarlink

Background <p>Many equity-deserving populations, including those facing structural health inequities, lack support to participate in clinical trials while facing barriers to participation. Two approaches—patient engagement (PE) and shared decision-making (SDM)—can help trialists better understand and address such barriers. PE can improve the relevance of trials to silenced communities while SDM can align participation decisions among socially disadvantaged groups with their values, needs, and preferences, which may help overcome health inequities. Further, Indigenous community engagement is vital to address the effects of colonialism and promote Indigenous self-determination and health equity. The extent to which existing reviews have identified common barriers, enablers, and strategies across equity-deserving groups and discussed PE and SDM concepts is unclear.</p> Purpose <p>(1) To describe which equity-deserving populations have been the focus of reviews on clinical trial participation and which barriers, enablers, and strategies are relevant to them (2) to explore the extent to which PE and SDM are discussed in these reviews.</p> Methods <p>We searched for English-language reviews (including any study design) summarizing trial participation barriers, enablers, and/or strategies among equity-deserving populations in five peer-reviewed databases. We coded data on the (1) equity-deserving population(s) of focus, (2) barriers, enablers, or interventions/strategies mentioned, (3) PE reported, (4) Indigenous community engagement reported, and (5) SDM outcomes discussed.</p> Results <p>Findings from 100 reviews showed that some equity-deserving populations have been represented more than others (e.g., 76% on racially, ethnically, culturally, or linguistically diverse populations; 29% on sex and gender populations; 2% on educationally disadvantaged populations). More reviews described barriers (84%) than enablers (31%) or strategies to improve participation (69%). Forty-five reviews (45%) reported PE while 11 (11%) reported Indigenous community engagement. Many reviews (74%) mentioned SDM outcomes (i.e., 9/11 [81.8%] outcomes from Gillies et al.’s internationally agreed core outcome set); however, few reviews (29%) discussed SDM outcomes in detail.</p> Conclusions <p>Our findings suggest that PE and SDM could be more broadly applied among multiple equity-deserving groups to better serve disadvantaged communities. We advocate for an expanded focus on less-researched equity-deserving groups, improved PE reporting, prioritization of patient outcomes, and engagement with patients and Indigenous communities.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A meta-review of patient engagement, shared decision-making, and factors influencing equity-deserving populations’ participation in clinical trials

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月16日

查看全文
  • Tamara L. Morgan,
  • Kelly Carroll,
  • Anosha Waqar,
  • Natasha Hudek,
  • Meena Mosa,
  • Dawn P. Richards,
  • Kim Meeking,
  • Marisa Granieri,
  • Maureen Smith,
  • Murray Walz,
  • Cole Etherington,
  • Susan Marlin,
  • Katie Gillies,
  • Justin Presseau,
  • Jamie C. Brehaut

摘要

Background

Many equity-deserving populations, including those facing structural health inequities, lack support to participate in clinical trials while facing barriers to participation. Two approaches—patient engagement (PE) and shared decision-making (SDM)—can help trialists better understand and address such barriers. PE can improve the relevance of trials to silenced communities while SDM can align participation decisions among socially disadvantaged groups with their values, needs, and preferences, which may help overcome health inequities. Further, Indigenous community engagement is vital to address the effects of colonialism and promote Indigenous self-determination and health equity. The extent to which existing reviews have identified common barriers, enablers, and strategies across equity-deserving groups and discussed PE and SDM concepts is unclear.

Purpose

(1) To describe which equity-deserving populations have been the focus of reviews on clinical trial participation and which barriers, enablers, and strategies are relevant to them (2) to explore the extent to which PE and SDM are discussed in these reviews.

Methods

We searched for English-language reviews (including any study design) summarizing trial participation barriers, enablers, and/or strategies among equity-deserving populations in five peer-reviewed databases. We coded data on the (1) equity-deserving population(s) of focus, (2) barriers, enablers, or interventions/strategies mentioned, (3) PE reported, (4) Indigenous community engagement reported, and (5) SDM outcomes discussed.

Results

Findings from 100 reviews showed that some equity-deserving populations have been represented more than others (e.g., 76% on racially, ethnically, culturally, or linguistically diverse populations; 29% on sex and gender populations; 2% on educationally disadvantaged populations). More reviews described barriers (84%) than enablers (31%) or strategies to improve participation (69%). Forty-five reviews (45%) reported PE while 11 (11%) reported Indigenous community engagement. Many reviews (74%) mentioned SDM outcomes (i.e., 9/11 [81.8%] outcomes from Gillies et al.’s internationally agreed core outcome set); however, few reviews (29%) discussed SDM outcomes in detail.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that PE and SDM could be more broadly applied among multiple equity-deserving groups to better serve disadvantaged communities. We advocate for an expanded focus on less-researched equity-deserving groups, improved PE reporting, prioritization of patient outcomes, and engagement with patients and Indigenous communities.