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

Le résumé fourni par la source

ABSTRACT Background The 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. Methods This 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. Findings Results 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. Interpretation Different 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. Funding Funded by the The Society of Clinical Research Sites, USA.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.