Reporting of Important Social Determinants of Health in Pediatric Clinical Trials

Social Determinants of Health and Health Equity in the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Sport-Related Concussion: A Content Analysis of Intervention Research and Call-To-Action

This review was designed to (i) determine the extent to which the clinical science on sport-related concussion treatment and rehabilitation has considered social determinants of health (SDoH) or health equity and (ii) offer recommendations to enhance the incorporation of SDoH and health equity in concussion treatment research and clinical care. The Concussion in Sport Group consensus statement (2023) was informed by two systematic reviews examining prescribed rest or exercise following concussion and targeted interventions to facilitate concussion recovery. We examined 31 studies, including 2,698 participants, from those two reviews. Race (k=6; 19.4%) and ethnicity (k=4; 12.9%) were usually not reported. Four studies examined ethnicity (i.e., Hispanic), exclusively as a demographic category. Five studies (16.1%) examined race as a demographic category. Three studies (9.7%) examined socioeconomic status (SES; measured as household income) as a demographic category/sample descriptor and one study (3.2%) examined SES in depth, by testing whether the treatment and control groups differed by SES. Five studies examined a SDoH domain in a descriptive manner and four studies in an inferential/intentional manner. No study mentioned SDoH, health equity, or disparities by name. Many studies (61.3%) excluded participants based on demographic, sociocultural, or health factors, primarily due to language proficiency. The new consensus statement includes recommendations for concussion treatment and rehabilitation that rely on an evidence base that has not included SDoH or studies addressing health equity. Researchers are encouraged to design treatment and rehabilitation studies that focus specifically on under-represented groups to determine if they have specific and unique treatment and rehabilitation needs, whether certain practical modifications to treatment protocols might be necessary, and whether completion rates and treatment adherence and response are similar.

Transparent Reporting-SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C Pediatric Updates

This Viewpoint discusses the development of pediatric-specific reporting guidelines that facilitate transparent reporting of published pediatric clinical trials.

Guidelines for reporting pediatric and child health clinical trial protocols and reports: study protocol for SPIRIT-Children and CONSORT-Children

BACKGROUND

Despite the critical importance of clinical trials to provide evidence about the effects of intervention for children and youth, a paucity of published high-quality pediatric clinical trials persists. Sub-optimal reporting of key trial elements necessary to critically appraise and synthesize findings is prevalent. To harmonize and provide guidance for reporting in pediatric controlled clinical trial protocols and reports, reporting guideline extensions to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines specific to pediatrics are being developed: SPIRIT-Children (SPIRIT-C) and CONSORT-Children (CONSORT-C).

METHODS

The development of SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be informed by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality (EQUATOR) method for reporting guideline development in the following stages: (1) generation of a preliminary list of candidate items, informed by (a) items developed during initial development efforts and child relevant items from recent published SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions; (b) two systematic reviews and environmental scan of the literature; (c) workshops with young people; (2) an international Delphi study, where a wide range of panelists will vote on the inclusion or exclusion of candidate items on a nine-point Likert scale; (3) a consensus meeting to discuss items that have not reached consensus in the Delphi study and to "lock" the checklist items; (4) pilot testing of items and definitions to ensure that they are understandable, useful, and applicable; and (5) a final project meeting to discuss each item in the context of pilot test results. Key partners, including young people (ages 12-24 years) and family caregivers (e.g., parents) with lived experiences with pediatric clinical trials, and individuals with expertise and involvement in pediatric trials will be involved throughout the project. SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be disseminated through publications, academic conferences, and endorsement by pediatric journals and relevant research networks and organizations.

DISCUSSION

SPIRIT/CONSORT-C may serve as resources to facilitate comprehensive reporting needed to understand pediatric clinical trial protocols and reports, which may improve transparency within pediatric clinical trials and reduce research waste.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The development of these reporting guidelines is registered with the EQUATOR Network: SPIRIT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials-protocols/#35 ) and CONSORT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials/#CHILD ).

Variations in how medical researchers report patient demographics: a retrospective analysis of published articles

Background

The use of demographic variables in the medical literature has been a topic of much recent debate. Recent studies found that race and socioeconomic status (SES) are inconsistently reported. Best-practice use of sex and gender has been contentious. We aimed to characterise the state of medical demographic reporting in greater detail, especially regarding geography and specific terms used in articles.

Methods

Original articles were included from issues of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), JAMA, The Lancet, and the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) published from 1 January to 31 December 2020 (n = 640). Articles without human participants, case reports, or with only aggregate data were excluded, leaving 594 articles. Use of age, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, and SES were coded, as well as corresponding author and participant geography.

Findings

99.0% of articles reported age. While 92.9% reported sex alone, only 4.7% used the term gender and 1.0% transgender. 47.8% of articles reported race and 29.6% reported ethnicity. Studies with U.S. corresponding authors or participants were significantly more likely to report race (72.9% and 73.7% respectively) or ethnicity (47.3% and 45.3% respectively) than those without (25.9% and 25.6% for race, 14.2% and 16.3% for ethnicity), p < 0.01 for all. Of articles reporting race, 40.9% used only a Black-white binary; of those reporting ethnicity, 85.2% included two or fewer terms. Under 5.0% of all articles used Office of Management and Budget (OMB) categories. Across all articles, 33.0% reported SES, from 15.2% in NEJM to 80.2% in AJE.

Interpretation

We found that while some factors (age, sex) are reported consistently, others (gender, race, ethnicity, SES) are not, despite recent attention. Authors often rely on binary or limited categories that inadequately capture human diversity. The presence of U.S. researchers or participants increased the reporting of race and/or ethnicity, highlighting wide variations that persist even as multinational collaborations become widespread. Researchers should reflect on their use of these terms, justify their decisions, and report results with care.

Funding

None.