Sociodemographic representation in randomized controlled trials for anxiety-related disorders in the U.S.: A systematic review (1993–2023)

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-05-18 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102446
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 ,&nbsp;Alexa M. Skolnik ,&nbsp;Hannah M. Johnson ,&nbsp;Jennifer Krafft ,&nbsp;Sarah Loew ,&nbsp;Andrew J. Kurtz ,&nbsp;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.

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
美国焦虑症随机对照试验中的社会人口代表性:系统回顾(1993-2023 年)
认知行为疗法被认为是治疗焦虑相关障碍的循证疗法。然而,支持这些疗法有效性的数据大多是从具有多数群体身份的参与者中收集的,这可能会限制这些疗法对少数群体患者的 "循证 "程度。本综述研究了 1993 年至 2023 年间美国针对焦虑症相关疾病的随机对照试验中的社会人口代表性和社会人口报告质量。我们对基于美国的焦虑症认知行为疗法随机对照试验进行了系统性文献综述,提取了社会人口变量数据,并对报告质量进行了评级。55 项符合条件的研究(N = 4492)的数据表明,相对于美国人口,白人和女性身份的比例过高,而残疾状况、性取向和宗教认同等变量则一直被忽视。此外,报告质量普遍较差(平均 = 3.6,满分 10 分),许多研究在分析或描述研究局限性时没有考虑人口统计学变量。发表年份、样本大小和美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)的资助状况对性别代表性(女性所占百分比)、种族代表性(白人所占百分比)或报告质量的影响不大。这些发现强调了严格评估 "循证 "疗法适用人群和增加临床样本多样性的重要性,以确保循证疗法具有包容性。本文还讨论了对未来研究的建议、临床影响和局限性。
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
Clinical Psychology Review
Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
65
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.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board How a strong measurement validity review can go astray: A look at Higgins et al. (2024) and recommendations for future measurement-focused reviews Are digital psychological interventions for psychological distress and quality of life in cancer patients effective? A systematic review and network meta-analysis The impact of interventions for depression on self-perceptions in young people: A systematic review & meta-analysis Corrigendum to “Network meta-analysis examining efficacy of components of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia’ [Clinical Psychology Review 114 (2024) 102507].
×
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