Patient engagement, shared decision-making and equity, diversity and inclusion considerations in research ethics board application forms and templates in Canada: a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES: Equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI), patient engagement and shared decision-making are important considerations throughout clinical trials, including the research ethics review stage. Meaningfully integrating these considerations can enhance the relevance and generalisability of trial results and reduce participation barriers among equity-deserving populations. Presently, it is unclear to what extent such guidance is provided at the ethics application stage for clinical trials. This study aimed to report the degree of guidance on EDI, patient engagement and shared decision-making in clinical trial research ethics documents. DESIGN: This was an embedded mixed methods study conducted in collaboration with Clinical Trials Ontario. SETTING: This study analysed research ethics board (REB) forms and templates from 17 institutions across seven provinces in Canada. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: 15 REB application forms, 9 protocol templates and 17 informed consent document (ICD) templates were assessed for guidance related to EDI, patient engagement and shared decision-making. The Place of residence, Race, ethnicity, culture and language, Occupation, Gender and sex, Religion, Education, Socio-economic status, Social capital (PROGRESS)-Plus framework, International Association for Public Participation Spectrum of Public Participation, Patient-Oriented Research Level of Engagement Tool, Indigenous Research Level of Engagement Tool and shared decision-making standards guided our coding. We engaged with patients and persons with lived experience to inform interpretation, reporting and dissemination. RESULTS: EDI guidance from 15 ethics application forms and 9 protocol templates predominantly covered the 'Race, ethnicity, culture, language' (n=14; 93.3%), 'Age' (n=13; 86.7%) and 'Gender and sex' (n=12; 80%) categories of PROGRESS-Plus but lacked nuance on diverse gender identities (n=1; 6.7%). Patient engagement guidance mostly covered the 'inform' level (n=7; 46.7%) and applying 'knowledge in practice' with non-Indigenous (n=7; 46.7%) or Indigenous communities (n=13; 86.7%). All 17 (100%) ICD templates included guidance on information about options, disclosures, key elements, ethical issues and study design. No guidance was available on time-dependent relationships, empowering patients and communities in co-leading trials or providing structured guidance in making trial participation decisions (all n=0; 0%). CONCLUSIONS: We provided a comprehensive view of EDI, patient engagement and shared decision-making guidance in trial ethics applications in Canada. REB guidance may be strengthened in several areas to support the inclusion of equity-deserving populations in trials, meaningful engagement with patients and Indigenous communities and evidence-informed, values-aligned decisions about trial participation.