4.6 Article

Landscape of clinical trial activity focusing on Indigenous health in Australia: an overview using clinical trial registry data from 2008-2018

期刊

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-13338-y

关键词

Indigenous health; Clinical trial registration; Burden of disease; Australia; Population health; Research prioritisation; Minority health; Underserved

资金

  1. Australian Government Department of Health and Therapeutic Innovation Australia (TIA)
  2. Australian Government through the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS) programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study highlights the disparity in clinical trial activity focusing on Indigenous health in Australia, with a small proportion of trials dedicated to Indigenous health and differences in study conditions, design, and funding source compared to general Australian trials.
Background: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (hereafter respectfully referred to as Indigenous Australians) represent about 3% of the total Australian population. Major health disparities exist between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians. To address this, it is vital to understand key health priorities and knowledge gaps in the current landscape of clinical trial activity focusing on Indigenous health in Australia. Methods: Australian-based clinical trials registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry or from 2008 to 2018 were analysed. Australian clinical trials with and without a focus on Indigenous health were compared in terms of total numbers, participant size, conditions studied, design, intervention type and funding source. Results: Of the 9206 clinical trials included, 139 (1.5%) focused on Indigenous health, with no proportional increase in Indigenous trials over the decade (p = 0.30). Top conditions studied in Indigenous-focused trials were mental health (n = 35, 28%), cardiovascular disease (n = 20, 20%) and infection (n = 16, 16%). Compared to General Australian trials, Indigenous-focused trials more frequently studied ear conditions (OR 20.26, 95% CI 10.32-37.02, p < 0.001), infection (OR 3.11, 95% CI 1.88-4.85, p < 0.001) and reproductive health (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.50-4.15, p < 0.001), and less of musculoskeletal conditions (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.00-0.37, p < 0.001), anaesthesiology (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01-0.69, p = 0.021) and surgery (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01-0.73, p = 0.027). For intervention types, Indigenous trials focused more on prevention (n = 48, 36%) and screening (n = 18, 13%). They were far less involved in treatment (n = 72, 52%) as an intervention than General Australian trials (n = 6785, 75%), and were less likely to be blinded (n = 48, 35% vs n = 4273, 47%) or have industry funding (n = 9, 7% vs 1587, 17%). Conclusions: Trials with an Indigenous focus differed from General Australian trials in the conditions studied, design and funding source. The presented findings may inform research prioritisation and alleviate the substantial burden of disease for Indigenous population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据