Minority participation in randomized controlled trials for prolonged exposure therapy: A systematic review of the literature
Abstract
Per the most recent census, non-Latinx White individuals comprise the majority of the U.S. population (76.6%); Latinx individuals make up 18.3% of the total U.S. population, followed by African Americans (13.4%) and Asians (5.9%). Given the high prevalence rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) observed across many ethnoracial minority groups in the United States, the fact that PTSD presentation may vary across culture, and the National Institute of Health's mandates for the inclusion of women and minorities in clinical outcome research, the aim of the present systematic review was to examine minority inclusion in clinical outcome research for PTSD. Our review focused exclusively on one empirically supported treatment: prolonged exposure therapy (PE); we identified 38 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Apart from African Americans, who were overrepresented in 21 studies (inclusion rate range: 13.5%-73.9%), ethnoracial minority inclusion in RCTs examining PE was low. More specifically, across included studies that reported ethnoracial minority data, 58.9% of participants were White, 31.1% were African American, 4.9% were Latinx, 0.6% were Asian American or Pacific Islander, and 4.7% reported race as "other." Inclusion rates for ethnoracial minorities appeared to increase across time, and recruitment strategies did not appear to be associated with increased ethnoracial minority participation in RCTs for PE.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Mental health clinical trial reviews consistently find Latinos underrepresented.
“However, despite the National Institutes of Health requirement of sufficient inclusion of racial minority groups in their funded clinical trials, systematic reviews of mental health clinical trials show consistently low representation of Latinos (Benuto, Bennett, & Casas, 2020; Mendoza, Williams, Chapman, & Powers, 2012; Williams, Powers, Yun, & Foa, 2010).”
From Randomized pilot trial of cognitive-behavioral therapy and acceptance-based behavioral therapy in the treatment of Spanish-speaking Latino primary care patients with generalized anxiety disorder (2021) · cites this paper as Benuto, Bennett, & Casas, 2020
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 69 · Cited by 26
- Authors
- Benuto, L. T., Bennett, N. M., & Casas, J. B.
- Affiliations
- University of Nevada, Reno (US)
- Corresponding author
- Benuto, Lorraine T.
- Venue
- Journal of Traumatic Stress
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-06-10
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 420-431
- ISSN
- 0894-9867 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6598
- OpenAlex
- W3033370644
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 69
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 0.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Traumatic Stress (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Migration, Health and Trauma
- Keywords
- prolonged exposure therapy, post-traumatic stress disorder, racial and ethnic diversity in clinical trials, African American participants
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Implosive Therapy, Male, Middle Aged, Minority Groups, Research Design, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review