Author:
Xu Ge,Modi Danai,Hunter Kylie E.,Askie Lisa M.,Jamieson Lisa M.,Brown Alex,Seidler Anna Lene
Abstract
Abstract
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 ClinicalTrials.gov 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.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference25 articles.
1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Profile of Indigenous Australians. Canberra: 2021. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/profile-of-indigenous-australians. Accessed 6 Mar 2022.
2. National Indigenous Australian Agency. About Closing the Gap. Australian Government; 2020. https://closingthegap.niaa.gov.au/about-closing-gap. Accessed 15 Apr 2020.
3. National Health and Medical Research Council: Road map 3: a strategic framework for improving the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people through research National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Government 2018.
4. Kinchin I, Mccalman J, Bainbridge R, Tsey K, Lui FW. Does indigenous health research have impact? A systematic review of reviews. Int J Equity Health. 2017;16(1):52.
5. Morris P. Randomised controlled trials addressing Australian Aboriginal health needs: a systematic review of the literature. J Paediatr Child Health. 1999;35(2):130–5.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献