Abstract
Objectives:
We systematically reviewed UK cardiovascular disease (CVD) randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocols to identify the proportion featuring eligibility criteria that may disproportionately exclude ethnic minority (EM) participants.
Methods:
We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases, January 2014-June 2022, to identify UK CVD RCT protocols. We extracted non-clinical eligibility criteria from trial protocols and inductively categorised the trials by their language, consent and broad (ambiguous) criteria. Findings are narratively reported.
Results:
Of the seventy included RCT protocols, most (87.1%; 61/70) mentioned consent within the eligibility criteria, with more than two thirds (68.9%; 42/61) indicating a requirement for ‘written’ consent. Alternative consent pathways that can aid EM participation were absent. English language requirement was present in 22.9% (16/70) of the studies and 37.1% (26/70) featured broad criteria that are open to interpretation and subject to recruiter bias. Only 4.3% (3/70) protocols mentioned the provision of translation services.
Conclusion:
Most UK CVD trial protocols feature eligibility criteria that potentially exclude EM groups. Trial eligibility criteria must be situated within a larger inclusive recruitment framework, where ethnicity is considered alongside other intersecting and disadvantaging identities.
We systematically reviewed UK cardiovascular disease (CVD) randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocols to identify the proportion featuring eligibility criteria that may disproportionately exclude ethnic minority (EM) participants.
Methods:
We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases, January 2014-June 2022, to identify UK CVD RCT protocols. We extracted non-clinical eligibility criteria from trial protocols and inductively categorised the trials by their language, consent and broad (ambiguous) criteria. Findings are narratively reported.
Results:
Of the seventy included RCT protocols, most (87.1%; 61/70) mentioned consent within the eligibility criteria, with more than two thirds (68.9%; 42/61) indicating a requirement for ‘written’ consent. Alternative consent pathways that can aid EM participation were absent. English language requirement was present in 22.9% (16/70) of the studies and 37.1% (26/70) featured broad criteria that are open to interpretation and subject to recruiter bias. Only 4.3% (3/70) protocols mentioned the provision of translation services.
Conclusion:
Most UK CVD trial protocols feature eligibility criteria that potentially exclude EM groups. Trial eligibility criteria must be situated within a larger inclusive recruitment framework, where ethnicity is considered alongside other intersecting and disadvantaging identities.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 111259 |
Number of pages | 12 |
Journal | Journal of Clinical Epidemiology |
Volume | 167 |
Early online date | 11 Jan 2024 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 1 Mar 2024 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2024 The Authors