Dataset Information

Gender disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 clinical trial leadership.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare the gender distribution of clinical trial leadership in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical trials.

Methods

We searched https://clinicaltrials.gov/ and retrieved all clinical trials on COVID-19 from 1 January 2020 to 26 June 2020. As a comparator group, we have chosen two fields that are not related to emerging infections and infectious diseases: and considered not directly affected by the pandemic: breast cancer and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and included studies within the aforementioned study period as well as those registered in the preceding year (pre-study period: 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019). Gender of the investigator was predicted using the genderize.io application programming interface. The repository of the data sets used to collect and analyse the data are available at https://osf.io/k2r57/.

Results

Only 27.8% (430/1548) of principal investigators among COVID-19-related studies were women, which is significantly different compared with 54.9% (156/284) and 42.1% (56/133) for breast cancer (p < 0.005) and T2DM (p < 0.005) trials over the same period, respectively. During the pre-study period, the proportion of principal investigators who were predicted to be women were 49.7% (245/493) and 44.4% (148/333) for breast cancer and T2DM trials, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant when compared with results from the study period (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

We demonstrate that less than one-third of COVID-19-related clinical trials are led by women, half the proportion observed in non-COVID-19 trials over the same period, which remained similar to the pre-study period. These gender disparities during the pandemic may not only indicate a lack of female leadership in international clinical trials and involvement in new projects but also reveal imbalances in women's access to research activities and funding during health emergencies.

SUBMITTER: Cevik M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7785275 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic required the rapid transition to telehealth with the aim of providing patients with medical access and supporting clinicians while abiding by the stay-at-home orders.ObjectiveTo assess demographic and socioeconomic factors associated with patient participation in telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included all pediatric and adult patient encounters at the Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery in a tertiary care, academic, multisubspecialty, multisite practice located in an early hot spot for the COVID-19 pandemic from March 17 to May 1, 2020. Encounters included completed synchronous virtual, telephone, and in-person visits as well as visit no-shows.Main outcomes and measuresPatient demographic characteristics, insurance status, and 2010 Census block level data as a proxy for socioeconomic status were extracted. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were created for patient-level comparisons.ResultsOf the 1162 patients (604 females [52.0%]; median age, 55 [range, 0-97] years) included, 990 completed visits; of these, 437 (44.1%) completed a virtual visit. After multivariate adjustment, females (odds ratio [OR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.11-2.63) and patients with preferred provider organization insurance (OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.40-5.20) were more likely to complete a virtual visit compared with a telephone visit. Increasing age (OR per year, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99) and being in the lowest median household income quartile (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.42-0.86) were associated with lower odds of completing a virtual visit overall. Those patients within the second (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.28-0.99) and lowest (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.62) quartiles of median household income by census block and those with Medicaid, no insurance, or other public insurance (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23-0.94) were more likely to complete a telephone visit. Finally, being within the lower 2 quartiles of proportion being married (OR for third quartile, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.29-0.86]; OR for lowest quartile, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.23-0.67]) was associated with higher likelihood of a no-show visit.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that age, sex, median household income, insurance status, and marital status are associated with patient participation in telehealth. These findings identify vulnerable patient populations who may not engage with telehealth, yet still require medical care in a changing health care delivery landscape.

Project description:BackgroundWith the global spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), an increasing number of clinical trials are being designed and executed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of various therapies for COVID-19. We conducted this survey to assess the methodological quality of registry protocols on potential treatments for COVID-19.MethodsClinical trial protocols were identified on the ClinicalTrials.gov and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. Protocols were screened by two investigators independently against pre-defined eligibility criteria. Quality of the included protocols was assessed according to the modified 14-item SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013 Statement.ResultsWe included 82 randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocols investigating treatment modalities for COVID-19. These ongoing trials are being conducted in 16 provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities of China, and study interventions were either Western medicines (n = 56) or traditional Chinese medicine (n = 26). Findings of our quality assessment indicated that the existing trial protocols could be further improved on several aspects, including selection and definition of outcome measures, descriptions of study interventions and comparators, study subject recruitment time, definition of study inclusion and exclusion criteria, and allocation concealment methods. Descriptions of random sequence generation methodologies were accurate for the majority of included trial protocols (n = 64; 78.05%); however, reporting of allocation concealment remained unclear in 63 (76.83%) protocols. Therefore, the overall risk of selection bias across these RCTs was judged to be unclear. A total of 52 (63.41%) included RCT protocols were open-label trials and are thus associated with a high risk of performance bias and detection bias.ConclusionQuality of currently available RCT protocols on the treatments for COVID-19 could be further improved. For transparency and effective knowledge translation in real-world clinically settings, it is important for trial investigators to standardize baseline treatments for patients with COVID-19 and assess clinically important core outcome measures. Despite eager anticipation from the public on the results of effectiveness trials in COVID-19, robust design, execution, and reporting of these trials should be regarded as high priority.