Examining the Association Between DCT Solutions Use and Participant Diversity in Clinical Trials.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science Pub Date : 2024-05-11 DOI:10.1007/s43441-024-00659-w
Zachary Smith, Kenneth Getz
{"title":"Examining the Association Between DCT Solutions Use and Participant Diversity in Clinical Trials.","authors":"Zachary Smith, Kenneth Getz","doi":"10.1007/s43441-024-00659-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Whereas anecdotal reports suggest that the use of decentralized clinical trial (DCT) solutions can improve participant diversity in clinical trials there is no quantitative evidence to support such reports.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Tufts CSDD conducted this initial study based on data collected from prior research and publicly available data drawn from Clinicaltrials.gov to compare and contrast participant diversity in trials which included various DCT solutions - virtual visits or televisits, home visits, devices or wearables, and the use of local labs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results of this analysis indicate that the use of local labs is associated with a lower percentage of white participants; the use of virtual visits or televisits is associated with a lower percentage of Black participants; and the use of devices or wearables was not associated with any significant change in participant demographics. The use of home visits could not be tested for significant differences.</p>","PeriodicalId":23084,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-024-00659-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Whereas anecdotal reports suggest that the use of decentralized clinical trial (DCT) solutions can improve participant diversity in clinical trials there is no quantitative evidence to support such reports.

Methods: Tufts CSDD conducted this initial study based on data collected from prior research and publicly available data drawn from Clinicaltrials.gov to compare and contrast participant diversity in trials which included various DCT solutions - virtual visits or televisits, home visits, devices or wearables, and the use of local labs.

Results: The results of this analysis indicate that the use of local labs is associated with a lower percentage of white participants; the use of virtual visits or televisits is associated with a lower percentage of Black participants; and the use of devices or wearables was not associated with any significant change in participant demographics. The use of home visits could not be tested for significant differences.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
研究临床试验中 DCT 解决方案的使用与参与者多样性之间的关联。
背景:有传闻称,使用分散式临床试验(DCT)解决方案可以提高临床试验参与者的多样性,但目前还没有量化证据支持此类报道:塔夫茨研究与发展中心(Tufts CSDD)根据从以前的研究中收集到的数据和从 Clinicaltrials.gov 中获取的公开数据开展了这项初步研究,比较和对比了包含各种 DCT 解决方案(虚拟访问或电视访问、家访、设备或可穿戴设备以及使用本地实验室)的试验中的参与者多样性:分析结果表明,使用本地实验室与白人参与者比例较低有关;使用虚拟访问或电视与黑人参与者比例较低有关;而使用设备或可穿戴设备与参与者人口统计学方面的任何显著变化无关。家访的使用无法测试是否存在显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science MEDICAL INFORMATICS-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.30%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (TIRS) is the official scientific journal of DIA that strives to advance medical product discovery, development, regulation, and use through the publication of peer-reviewed original and review articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor across the spectrum of converting biomedical science into practical solutions to advance human health. The focus areas of the journal are as follows: Biostatistics Clinical Trials Product Development and Innovation Global Perspectives Policy Regulatory Science Product Safety Special Populations
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Product Features and Clinical Trial Designs for the DTx Products with the Indication of Insomnia Authorized by Regulatory Authorities. A Framework for the Use and Likelihood of Regulatory Acceptance of Single-Arm Trials Correction: Advanced Regenerative Medicines for Rare Diseases: A Review of Industry Sponsors Investment Motivations. Latest Developments in “Adaptive Enrichment” Clinical Trial Designs in Oncology Advanced Regenerative Medicines for Rare Diseases: A Review of Industry Sponsors Investment Motivations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1