Another ongoing challenge is that women are more likely to shoulder the day-to-day burden associated with “childcare and family responsibilities” and agree to long-term commitments associated with clinical trial participation after PCI or CABG. The fact is that it is becoming more difficult to do so.
“Although some trials provide reimbursement to patients, it is often insufficient to cover both the actual and opportunity costs of participation, creating an additional disproportionate barrier.” Yong and Fearon write. “Even when this is not the case, implicit bias can create a perception that female candidates are less suitable. Further research is needed to understand the perspectives of female patients and their health care providers. ”
Two co-authors noted that changes in clinical trial leadership are associated with improved patient representation. However, the representation of women in interventional cardiology is as low as 5%, by some calculations, and it can be quite difficult to get enough women into leadership positions to truly make an impact. . And it’s not enough to just wait for more women to join so you can recruit more women. To truly make a difference, clinical trial leaders must truly prioritize equal representation. This could mean accepting longer-than-average recruitment periods if necessary, or exploring whether artificial intelligence could potentially have an impact, Young and Fearon wrote.
“Introducing action based on these results will only be possible if all stakeholders across the clinical trial spectrum, from funders to journal editorial boards, investigators, and clinicians and their patients, are aligned. “It will only be successful in the future,” they concluded. “If we can not only expect but demand good representation as a standard for high-quality research worthy of adoption into practice, we will have a chance to achieve true fairness in clinical trials. ”
Read the full editorial JAMA Cardiology here.
