Abstract
Background
There are major health disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. To address this, it is vital to understand the landscape of Indigenous trial activity.
Methods
We extracted data from all Australian trials registered between 2008-2018 on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry or ClinicalTrials.gov. Indigenous-focused trials were identified by searching for relevant terms such as ‘Indigenous’ and ‘Aboriginal’. Indigenous versus non-Indigenous trials and Australian trials overall were compared by conditions studied, intervention type, study design and funding.
Results
Of the 9206 included trials, 139 (1.5%) focused on Indigenous health, and these were mostly in ‘Public Health’ (n = 69, 50%), ‘Mental Health’ (n = 35, 25%) and ‘Cardiovascular’ (n = 25, 18%) (Figure). Compared to other Australian trials, Indigenous trials more frequently studied ear conditions (OR 16.47, 95%CI=8.43-29.99) and public health (OR 4.87, 95%CI=3.65-6.41), and were more likely to focus on screening (OR 3.57, 95%CI=2.10-5.70) and prevention (OR 2.24, 95%CI=1.61-3.08) rather than treatment (OR 0.40, 95%CI =0.30-0.52). They were less likely to be blinded (OR 1.72, 95%CI=1.20-2.49), or have any industry involvement (OR 2.52, 95%CI=1.54-4.43).
Conclusions
Indigenous trials differed from other Australian trials in health conditions studied, intervention focus, blinding and industry involvement. Relative to population size and burden of disease, the number of trials focusing on Indigenous health is low.
Key messages
Trial registries can be used to explore whether research appropriately addresses diverse populations such as Indigenous Australians. This can inform future research prioritisation.
There are major health disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. To address this, it is vital to understand the landscape of Indigenous trial activity.
Methods
We extracted data from all Australian trials registered between 2008-2018 on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry or ClinicalTrials.gov. Indigenous-focused trials were identified by searching for relevant terms such as ‘Indigenous’ and ‘Aboriginal’. Indigenous versus non-Indigenous trials and Australian trials overall were compared by conditions studied, intervention type, study design and funding.
Results
Of the 9206 included trials, 139 (1.5%) focused on Indigenous health, and these were mostly in ‘Public Health’ (n = 69, 50%), ‘Mental Health’ (n = 35, 25%) and ‘Cardiovascular’ (n = 25, 18%) (Figure). Compared to other Australian trials, Indigenous trials more frequently studied ear conditions (OR 16.47, 95%CI=8.43-29.99) and public health (OR 4.87, 95%CI=3.65-6.41), and were more likely to focus on screening (OR 3.57, 95%CI=2.10-5.70) and prevention (OR 2.24, 95%CI=1.61-3.08) rather than treatment (OR 0.40, 95%CI =0.30-0.52). They were less likely to be blinded (OR 1.72, 95%CI=1.20-2.49), or have any industry involvement (OR 2.52, 95%CI=1.54-4.43).
Conclusions
Indigenous trials differed from other Australian trials in health conditions studied, intervention focus, blinding and industry involvement. Relative to population size and burden of disease, the number of trials focusing on Indigenous health is low.
Key messages
Trial registries can be used to explore whether research appropriately addresses diverse populations such as Indigenous Australians. This can inform future research prioritisation.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | International Journal of Epidemiology |
| Volume | 50 |
| Issue number | Supplement_1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published or Issued - 1 Sept 2021 |
Keywords
- australia
- cardiovascular system
- cost of illness
- ear diseases
- mental health
- New zealand
- public health medicine
- health disparity
- prevention