CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 114Ethics in Clinical ResearchMental Health Treatment and AccessMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Diversity in randomized clinical trials of depression: A 36-year review

Polo, Antonio J., Makol, Bridget A., Castro, Ashley S., Colón-Quintana, Nicole, Wagstaff, Amanda E., Guo, Sisi·2019·Clinical Psychology Review
DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2018.09.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Historically, authors reporting the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to address mental health problems have insufficiently described sample characteristics pertaining to the ethnic/racial, linguistic, socioeconomic, and immigrant backgrounds of participants. RCTs have also had inadequate representation of participants from diverse backgrounds. This study reports on the trends in the reporting and representation of various sample demographic characteristics in RCTs of psychotherapy and other psychosocial interventions for depression over a 36-year period, and on the extent to which ethnicity, in particular, is considered in the analyses of treatment effects. A total of 342 trials (85.1% comprised of adult samples), representing 61,283 participants, are summarized in the review. Reporting for ethnicity and socioeconomic indicators improved over time, and RCTs for depression have also increasingly included significant numbers of ethnic minority and low-income groups. However, trials are far more likely to exclude, rather than include, linguistic minorities, and have not enrolled a meaningful number of Asian American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Native American/Native Alaskan and multi-ethnic participants. Finally, treatment effects are almost never presented separately across racial/ethnic groups and ethnicity moderation analyses are only sporadically conducted. These findings have implications for generalizability, policy, journal reporting guidelines, and dissemination and implementation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2018.09.004

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • There is a lack of racial and ethnic diversity in MBI research and psychotherapy generally.

    “Second, there is a lack of racial and ethnic diversity in MBI research75,145 and psychotherapy generally146.”

    From A common factors perspective on mindfulness-based interventions (2022) · cites this paper as [145]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Polo, A. J., Makol, B. A., Castro, A. S., Colón-Quintana, N., Wagstaff, A. E., & Guo, S.
Affiliations
  • DePaul University (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Polo, Antonio J.
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-02
Volume
67
Pages
22-35
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cpr.2018.09.004
OpenAlex
W2893135082
Cited by
114
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 3
FWCI
1.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
depression, randomized controlled trials, racial and ethnic diversity, demographic reporting, psychotherapy, psychosocial interventions, socioeconomic status, generalizability, reporting guidelines
MeSH terms
Depressive Disorder, Humans, Minority Groups, Psychotherapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Cultural Diversity

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