A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to participation in randomized controlled trials by Indigenous people from New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ISSUE: Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are conducted each year but only a small proportion is specifically designed for Indigenous people. In this review we consider the challenges of participation in RCTs for Indigenous peoples from New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States and the opportunities for increasing participation. APPROACH: The literature was systematically searched for published articles including information on the barriers and facilitators for Indigenous people's participation in health-related RCTs. Articles were identified using a key word search of electronic databases (Scopus, Medline and EMBASE). To be included, papers had to include in their published work at least one aspect of their RCT that was either a barrier and/or facilitator for participation identified from, for example, design of intervention, or discussion sections of articles. Articles that were reviews, discussions, opinion pieces or rationale/methodology were excluded. Results were analysed inductively, allowing themes to emerge from the data. KEY FINDINGS: Facilitators enabling Indigenous people's participation in RCTs included relationship and partnership building, employing Indigenous staff, drawing on Indigenous knowledge models, targeted recruitment techniques and adapting study material. Challenges for participation included both participant-level factors (such as a distrust of research) and RCT-level factors (including inadequately addressing likely participant barriers (phone availability, travel costs), and a lack of recognition or incorporation of Indigenous knowledge systems. IMPLICATION: The findings from our review add to the body of knowledge on elimination of health disparities, by identifying effective and practical strategies for conducting and engaging Indigenous peoples with RCTs. Future trials that seek to benefit Indigenous peoples should actively involve Indigenous research partners, and respect and draw on pertinent Indigenous knowledge and values. This review has the potential to assist in the design of such studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.161 | 0.461 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".