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.

This was an embedded mixed methods study conducted in collaboration with Clinical Trials Ontario.

This study analysed research ethics board (REB) forms and templates from 17 institutions across seven provinces in Canada.

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.

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%).

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.

Encephalitis is brain parenchyma inflammation, frequently resulting in seizures which worsens outcomes. Early anti-seizure medication could improve outcomes but requires identifying patients at greatest risk of acute seizures. The SEIZURE (SEIZUre Risk in Encephalitis) score was developed in UK cohorts to stratify patients by acute seizure risk. A ‘basic score’ used Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), fever and age; the ‘advanced score’ added aetiology. This study aimed to evaluate the score internationally to determine its global applicability.

Patients were retrospectively analysed regionally, and by country, in this international evaluation study. Univariate analysis was conducted between patients who did and did not have inpatient seizures, followed by multivariable logistic regression, hierarchical clustering and analysis of the area under the receiver operating curves (AUROC) with 95% CIs.

2032 patients across 13 countries were identified, among whom 1324 were included in SEIZURE score calculations and 970 were included in regression modelling. The involved countries comprised 19 organisations spanning all WHO regions.

The primary outcome was measuring inpatient seizure rates.

Autoantibody-associated encephalitis, low GCS and presenting with a seizure were frequently associated with inpatient seizures; fever showed no association. Globally, the score had limited discriminatory ability (basic AUROC 0.58 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.62), advanced AUROC 0.63 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.66)). The scoring system performed acceptably in western Europe, excluding Spain, with the best performance in Portugal (basic AUROC 0.82 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.94), advanced AUROC 0.83 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.95)).

The SEIZURE score performed best in several countries in Western Europe but performed poorly elsewhere, partly due to differing and unknown aetiologies. In most regions, the score did not reach a threshold to be clinically useful. The Western European results could aid in designing clinical trials assessing primary anti-seizure prophylaxis in encephalitis following further prospective trials. Beyond Western Europe, there is a need for tailored, localised scoring systems and future large-scale prospective studies with optimised aetiological testing to accurately identify high-risk patients.

Inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) are a broad range of diseases associated with abnormalities/degeneration of retinal cells. We aimed to identify the top 10 Australian research priorities for IRDs to ultimately facilitate more meaningful and potentially cost-effective research.

We conducted a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership that involved two Australian-wide surveys and online workshops.

Australia-wide.

Individuals aged 16 years or older were eligible to participate if they had an IRD, were caregivers of an individual with an IRD or were health professionals providing care to this community.

In Survey 1, we gathered participants’ unanswered questions about IRDs. We grouped these into summary questions and undertook a literature review to verify if they were truly unanswered (ie, evidence uncertainties). In Survey 2, participants voted for the uncertainties that they considered a priority. Top-ranked uncertainties progressed for discussion and final prioritisation in two workshops.

In Survey 1, we collected 223 questions from 69 participants. We grouped these into 42 summary questions and confirmed 41 as evidence uncertainties. In Survey 2, 151 participants voted, with the 16 uncertainties progressing to final prioritisation. The top 10 priorities, set by the 24 workshop participants, represented (1) treatment/cure; (2) symptoms and disease progression; (3) psychosocial well-being and (4) health service delivery. The #1 priority was for treatment to prevent, slow down or stop vision loss, followed by the #2 priority to address the psychological impact of having an IRD.

The top 10 research priorities highlight the need for IRD research that takes a whole-person, systems approach. Collaborations to progress priorities will accelerate the translation of research into real-world benefits.