Inclusionary Trials: A Review of Lessons Not Learned

Reporting of participant race and ethnicity from COVID-19 randomized controlled drug and biologicals trials: a scoping review

Racial and ethnic minorities have been disproportionally burdened by hospitalization and death due to COVID-19. Participation of individuals of diverse races and ethnicities in clinical trials, according to study-level characteristics of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that test effectiveness of COVID-19 drugs, could be insightful for future researchers. Our objective for this scoping review was to describe the frequency of race and ethnicity reported as demographic variables and specific reporting of race and ethnicity according to COVID-19 RCT characteristics. We conducted comprehensive searches in PubMed, ProQuest, World Health Organization Database, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and gray literature via preprint servers from January 1, 2020, to May 4, 2022. We included RCTs on emergency- or conditionally approved COVID-19 drug interventions (remdesivir, baricitinib, and molnupiravir) with or without comparators. Self-reported race as American Indian/Pacific Islander, Asian, Black/African American, or White, ethnicity as Hispanic/Latinx, study design characteristics, and participant-relevant data were collected. In total, 17 RCTs with 17 935 participants were included. Most (n = 13; 76%) reported at least 1 race and ethnicity and were US-based, industry-funded RCTs. Asian, Black, Latinx, and White participants were mostly enrolled in RCTs that studied remdesivir. Native American and Hawaiian participants were mostly assessed for progression to high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation. Time to recovery was assessed predominantly in Black and White participants, whereas hospitalization or death was mostly assessed in Asian, Latinx, and multirace participants. Trialists should be aware of RCT-level factors and characteristics that may be associated with low participation of racial and ethnic minorities, which could inform evidence-based interventions to increase minority participation.

Ethical considerations for referral partnerships in clinical research

Recruitment challenges in clinical research are widespread, particularly for traditionally under-represented groups. Referral relationships-in which research partners and clinical partners agree to collaborate on selected research studies or programmes, with the expectation that the clinical partners refer appropriate patients as potential participants-may help alleviate these challenges. Referral relationships allow research partners access to expanded and more diverse pools of participants by increasing the engagement of medical providers, leveraging providers' connections with patients and providing structural support for study participation. Clinical partners can also benefit from the resources offered by research involvement, and patients may benefit from improved access to studies. Yet despite their potential, referral relationships can raise ethical concerns. Here, we discuss ethical considerations for referral relationships in clinical research to address these concerns. When establishing relationships, fair participant selection should guide the sites and studies involved. When defining the terms of a relationship, partners should build trust and respect, collaborating so that health centres or hospitals and communities benefit from their research involvement with the mitigation of associated burdens. When implemented, referral relationships should continue to honour fair participant selection, reduce misunderstanding or miscommunication about research and protect patients' privacy and confidentiality. Overall, when conducted ethically, referral relationships can help address study recruitment challenges and promote fair access to research opportunities.

Community Engagement in Behavioral Medicine: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Behavioral medicine has made key contributions toward improving health outcomes. Engaging community partners in research is critical to addressing persistent health inequities. The aim of this scoping review was to explore how researchers engaged community partners within the field of behavioral medicine research from 2005 to 2023.

METHOD

Publication databases and gray literature were searched for research that engaged community partners to address questions relevant to behavioral medicine. Articles were screened by title and abstract, and then by full text. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were coded using the framework provided by the Engagement Navigator to identify engagement approaches, methods, and tools and when they were used during the research.

RESULTS

Of 1486 articles initially identified, 58 met the inclusion criteria. Most articles used well-known approaches (e.g., community-based participatory research; 67%), methods (e.g., advisory committees; 59%), and tools (e.g., interviews; 41%), and engaged with healthcare service providers (62%) and/or patients (53%). Community partners were most often included in research planning and design (79%), and less often in dissemination (45%).

CONCLUSION

Community engagement has considerable potential to address health inequities. Our assessment of the approaches, methods, and tools used by behavioral medicine researchers to engage with a diverse range of community partners points toward promising strategies for enhancing the impact of community engagement. Researchers should incorporate explicit descriptions of community engagement strategies in publications, an outcome that could be facilitated by clear publishing guidelines, structured reporting tools, and clear messaging from funders about the value of community engagement in behavioral medicine research.

Enhancing Impact: A Call to Action for Equitable Implementation Science

Despite investments in evidence-based interventions and Implementation Science, most evidence-based interventions are not widely or routinely adopted, delivered, or sustained in many real-world community and healthcare settings. This gap is even greater in settings and populations experiencing numerous social and structural barriers to health, with important implications for persistent patterns in health inequities. In this Viewpoint, as part of a Special Issue on Advancing the Adaptability of Chronic Disease Prevention and Management through Implementation Science, we outline seven calls to action for the field of Implementation Science, with the goal of encouraging researchers, practitioners, and funders to be more intentional and accountable in applying Implementation Science to have greater impact on promoting health equity. Calls to action include (1) enhance public health, community, and multi-sectoral partnerships to promote health equity and equitable implementation; (2) revisit and build the evidence base needed to promote health equity and impact at multiple levels; (3) prioritize focus on policy development, dissemination, and implementation; (4) be agile and responsive in application of Implementation Science frameworks, processes, and methods; (5) identify and redefine meaningful metrics for equity and impact; (6) disseminate scientific evidence and research to a diverse range of partners and potential beneficiaries; and (7) extend focus on de-implementation, mis-implementation, and sustainability which are central to enhancing health equity. Additionally, we outline why a focus on prevention and public health is essential to making progress towards health equity in Implementation Science, summarize important advancements that the field has made towards making equity more foundational, and pose important research questions to enhance equitable impact of work in this area.

Team science competencies across the career life course for translational science teams

Introduction

Translational science (TS) teams develop and conduct translational research. Academic TS teams can be categorized under three constituency groups: trainees and faculty, clinical research professionals (CRP), and community partners. Our study objectives were to define individual and team competencies of these three constituency groups during their career life course and determine relative importance and the level of mastery of each of the competencies needed at different stages of their life course.

Methods

Each group was composed of experts for their constituency group. We applied individual and team competencies in TS teams by Lotrecchiano et al. (2020) as a starting point for structured expert discussions following a modified Delphi approach that we adapted based on the emergent needs and insights per constituency group.

Results

The degree of relevance and level of mastery for individual and team competencies varies for trainees and faculty members across the career life course based on opportunities provided and relative importance at that career stage. However, CRPs enter TS teams at various career stages with fundamental, skilled, or advanced levels of smart skills that may or may not be contextual to their role. Community partners equally possess and develop competencies in a non-linear and contextual fashion that are required to facilitate constructive, bi-directional collaboration with other members of TS teams.

Conclusions

Team science competencies across the career life course do not develop linearly among different constituency groups and require an adaptive framework to enhance TS team effectiveness.

The structural and social determinants of Alzheimer's disease related dementias

INTRODUCTION

The projected growth of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related dementia (ADRD) cases by midcentury has expanded the research field and impelled new lines of inquiry into structural and social determinants of health (S/SDOH) as fundamental drivers of disparities in AD/ADRD.

METHODS

In this review, we employ Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory as a framework to posit how S/SDOH impact AD/ADRD risk and outcomes.

RESULTS

Bronfenbrenner defined the "macrosystem" as the realm of power (structural) systems that drive S/SDOH and that are the root cause of health disparities. These root causes have been discussed little to date in relation to AD/ADRD, and thus, macrosystem influences, such as racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia, are the emphasis in this paper.

DISCUSSION

Under Bronfenbrenner's macrosystem framework, we highlight key quantitative and qualitative studies linking S/SDOH with AD/ADRD, identify scientific gaps in the literature, and propose guidance for future research.

HIGHLIGHTS

Ecological systems theory links structural/social determinants to AD/ADRD. Structural/social determinants accrue and interact over the life course to impact AD/ADRD. Macrosystem is made up of societal norms, beliefs, values, and practices (e.g., laws). Most macro-level determinants have been understudied in the AD/ADRD literature.

The Role of Anti-Racist Community-Partnered Praxis in Implementing Restorative Circles Within Marginalized Communities in Southern California During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the adverse influence of structural racism and discrimination experienced by historically marginalized communities (e.g., Black, Latino/a/x, Indigenous, and transgender people). Structural racism contributes to trauma-induced health behaviors, increasing exposure to COVID-19 and restricting access to testing and vaccination. This intersection of multiple disadvantages has a negative impact on the mental health of these communities, and interventions addressing collective healing are needed in general and in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Share, Trust, Organize, and Partner COVID-19 California Alliance (STOP COVID-19 CA), a statewide collaborative of 11 universities and 75 community partners, includes several workgroups to address gaps in COVID-19 information, vaccine trial participation, and access. One of these workgroups, the Vaccine Hesitancy Workgroup, adopted an anti-racist community-partnered praxis to implement restorative circles in historically marginalized communities to facilitate collective healing due to structural racism and the COVID-19 pandemic. The project resulted in the development of a multilevel pre-intervention restorative process to build or strengthen community-institutional partnerships when procurement of funds has been sought prior to community partnership. This article discusses this workgroup's role in advancing health justice by providing a community-based mental health intervention to marginalized communities in Southern California while using an antiracist praxis tool to develop a successful community-institutional partnership and to live up to the vision of community-based participatory research.