Back

A Comparative Analysis of US and UK Site Self-Assessment of Practices in Recruiting and Meeting the Needs of Diverse Patient Populations in Clinical Trials

Phiri, P.; Foster, D. A.; Shah, B.; Sajid, S.; Lewis, L.; Rathod, S.; Delanerolle, G.; Shi, J. Q.

2023-11-03 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2023.11.03.23297984 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe comparative analysis of site practices in recruiting and outreach of diverse patient populations in clinical trials is needed for a harmonious approach to navigating solutions for improving patient diversity globally. With the availability of the Diverse Site Assessment Tool (DSAT), such analyses have become feasible. MethodsThis study presents a comparison of self-reported data related to diversity best practices using the DSAT by members of clinical trials research sites from three distinct cohorts in the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK). The Diverse Site Assessment Tool (DSAT) is a 25-item self-report measure, exploring best practices for the recruitment of diverse patient populations during clinical trials. The DSAT was administered online via the Qualtrics XM platform. DSAT data for each of these cohorts were retrieved and scored and individual item means were used to conduct reliability, descriptive and inferential statistical analysis. FindingsResults indicate that the DSAT is an exceptionally reliable instrument for self-assessment of diversity best practices. Results also showed that among the three DSAT sections, the section of patient focused services shows the lowest scores regardless of the cohort and that DSAT section scores were considerably different between the 2 US cohorts as well as between the US and UK cohorts. Overall, DSAT scores were higher for US cohorts than for the UK cohort. InterpretationDifferent stakeholders from the US and UK might want to examine the findings of this study carefully and discuss its implications for their own country, sites within it and discuss how harmonized efforts for diversity in clinical trials can be established. FundingFunded by the The Society of Clinical Research Sites, USA.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.