Discretionary exclusion criteria in oncology clinical trials and exclusion of people with psychiatric and cognitive disabilities.

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Disability and Health Journal Pub Date : 2025-03-12 DOI:10.1016/j.dhjo.2025.101824
Nicole D Agaronnik, Elyse R Park, Lisa I Iezzoni
{"title":"Discretionary exclusion criteria in oncology clinical trials and exclusion of people with psychiatric and cognitive disabilities.","authors":"Nicole D Agaronnik, Elyse R Park, Lisa I Iezzoni","doi":"10.1016/j.dhjo.2025.101824","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical trial protocols often allow investigators discretion to determine whether individuals are eligible to participate.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the frequency and impact of discretionary eligibility criteria in oncology clinical trials, including whether they specifically target populations with psychiatric or cognitive disabilities for exclusion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified interventional Phase III and Phase IV oncology clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov starting between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2023. Among these, we included trials with at least one US location, patient populations aged 18-65 or 65+, and a posted study protocol. We used descriptive statistics to capture prevalence of broad investigator discretion in eligibility criteria. We reviewed statements concerning discretionary eligibility criteria for text relating to psychiatric or cognitive disability, and we applied qualitative content analysis techniques to identify themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-six trials met inclusion criteria for this study. Of these, 82 (85.4 %) of trials allowed broad investigator discretion to determine eligibility. Content analysis revealed concerns about participants' safety (i.e., posing undue risk to patients), potential difficulties adhering to study protocols (e.g., because of patients' physical, psychiatric, or social condition), perceived ability to obtain informed consent, and completing assessments of patients to determine results of interventions. All trials required informed consent.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most oncology clinical trials allow investigators broad discretion in determining the eligibility of individuals to participate. These discretionary criteria may particularly target persons with psychiatric or cognitive disabilities, excluding them from participating in clinical trials. Further research should examine whether certain rationales for excluding these populations are appropriate.</p>","PeriodicalId":49300,"journal":{"name":"Disability and Health Journal","volume":" ","pages":"101824"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disability and Health Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2025.101824","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical trial protocols often allow investigators discretion to determine whether individuals are eligible to participate.

Objective: To examine the frequency and impact of discretionary eligibility criteria in oncology clinical trials, including whether they specifically target populations with psychiatric or cognitive disabilities for exclusion.

Methods: We identified interventional Phase III and Phase IV oncology clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov starting between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2023. Among these, we included trials with at least one US location, patient populations aged 18-65 or 65+, and a posted study protocol. We used descriptive statistics to capture prevalence of broad investigator discretion in eligibility criteria. We reviewed statements concerning discretionary eligibility criteria for text relating to psychiatric or cognitive disability, and we applied qualitative content analysis techniques to identify themes.

Results: Ninety-six trials met inclusion criteria for this study. Of these, 82 (85.4 %) of trials allowed broad investigator discretion to determine eligibility. Content analysis revealed concerns about participants' safety (i.e., posing undue risk to patients), potential difficulties adhering to study protocols (e.g., because of patients' physical, psychiatric, or social condition), perceived ability to obtain informed consent, and completing assessments of patients to determine results of interventions. All trials required informed consent.

Conclusions: Most oncology clinical trials allow investigators broad discretion in determining the eligibility of individuals to participate. These discretionary criteria may particularly target persons with psychiatric or cognitive disabilities, excluding them from participating in clinical trials. Further research should examine whether certain rationales for excluding these populations are appropriate.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Disability and Health Journal
Disability and Health Journal HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
6.70%
发文量
134
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: Disability and Health Journal is a scientific, scholarly, and multidisciplinary journal for reporting original contributions that advance knowledge in disability and health. Topics may be related to global health, quality of life, and specific health conditions as they relate to disability. Such contributions include: • Reports of empirical research on the characteristics of persons with disabilities, environment, health outcomes, and determinants of health • Reports of empirical research on the Systematic or other evidence-based reviews and tightly conceived theoretical interpretations of research literature • Reports of empirical research on the Evaluative research on new interventions, technologies, and programs • Reports of empirical research on the Reports on issues or policies affecting the health and/or quality of life for persons with disabilities, using a scientific base.
期刊最新文献
Discretionary exclusion criteria in oncology clinical trials and exclusion of people with psychiatric and cognitive disabilities. How healthcare organizations provide disability accommodations to promote equitable care: A qualitative study. Stakeholder perspectives on an adult cerebral palsy community registry: A qualitative study. Impact of physical disability on transplant candidacy: A multi-institutional survey of transplant professionals. Table of Contents
×
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