Clarissa W. Ong , Alexa M. Skolnik , Hannah M. Johnson , Jennifer Krafft , Sarah Loew , Andrew J. Kurtz , Eric B. Lee
{"title":"Sociodemographic representation in randomized controlled trials for anxiety-related disorders in the U.S.: A systematic review (1993–2023)","authors":"Clarissa W. Ong , Alexa M. Skolnik , Hannah M. Johnson , Jennifer Krafft , Sarah Loew , Andrew J. Kurtz , Eric B. Lee","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102446","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Cognitive behavioral therapies have been identified as evidence-based treatments for anxiety-related disorders. However, data supporting the effectiveness of these treatments have been largely collected from participants with majoritized identities, potentially limiting the extent to which they can be considered “evidence-based” for clients from minoritized groups. The current review examined sociodemographic representation and quality of sociodemographic reporting in randomized controlled trials for anxiety-related disorders in the U.S. between 1993 and 2023. We conducted a systematic literature review of U.S.-based randomized controlled trials of cognitive behavioral therapies for anxiety-related disorders, extracted data on sociodemographic variables, and rated quality of reporting. Data from 55 eligible studies (<em>N</em> = 4492) indicated that white and female identities were overrepresented relative to the U.S. population, with variables like disability status, sexual orientation, and religious identification consistently ignored. In addition, quality of reporting was generally poor (mean = 3.6 out of 10), with many studies failing to account for demographic variables in their analyses or description of study limitations. Publication year, sample size, and NIH funding status did not significantly predict gender representation (% women), ethnoracial representation (% white), or quality of reporting. These findings underscore the importance of critically evaluating to whom “evidence-based” treatments apply and increasing diversity of clinical samples, to ensure that evidence-based treatments are inclusive. Recommendations for future research, clinical implications, and limitations are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"111 ","pages":"Article 102446"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000679/pdfft?md5=a8a4183a6020afdc527ae7af400f9b28&pid=1-s2.0-S0272735824000679-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000679","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Cognitive behavioral therapies have been identified as evidence-based treatments for anxiety-related disorders. However, data supporting the effectiveness of these treatments have been largely collected from participants with majoritized identities, potentially limiting the extent to which they can be considered “evidence-based” for clients from minoritized groups. The current review examined sociodemographic representation and quality of sociodemographic reporting in randomized controlled trials for anxiety-related disorders in the U.S. between 1993 and 2023. We conducted a systematic literature review of U.S.-based randomized controlled trials of cognitive behavioral therapies for anxiety-related disorders, extracted data on sociodemographic variables, and rated quality of reporting. Data from 55 eligible studies (N = 4492) indicated that white and female identities were overrepresented relative to the U.S. population, with variables like disability status, sexual orientation, and religious identification consistently ignored. In addition, quality of reporting was generally poor (mean = 3.6 out of 10), with many studies failing to account for demographic variables in their analyses or description of study limitations. Publication year, sample size, and NIH funding status did not significantly predict gender representation (% women), ethnoracial representation (% white), or quality of reporting. These findings underscore the importance of critically evaluating to whom “evidence-based” treatments apply and increasing diversity of clinical samples, to ensure that evidence-based treatments are inclusive. Recommendations for future research, clinical implications, and limitations are discussed.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology.
While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.