The main reason for running clinical trials is to gain approval to sell a new drug or treatment. But clinical trials also present a chance for researchers to understand who will and who won't benefit from a new drug, and—maybe more importantly—the experimental measures they test are a source of hope for patients who aren't getting better on existing drugs. Unfortunately, new research shows, cancer treatment trials likely underrepresent low-income populations, raising concerns about the reliability of the data and the quality of care for an already vulnerable population.
It's long been known that people low on the socioeconomic ladder aren't as healthy as those who are financially better-off; a lack of insurance, limited access to doctors, and high costs conspire to keep low-income individuals from receiving the care they need. At the same time, it's not uncommon for researchers to (consciously or unconsciously) exclude large swaths of the general population from their studies, which has significant consequences for the practice of medicine. Perhaps most famously, women continue to be dramaticallyunderrepresented in studies of cardiovascular health and heart attacks, to the point where many doctors are unaware that men and women experience heart attacks differently.
[For more of this story, written by Nathan Collins, go to http://www.psmag.com/health-an...erimental-treatments]
Comments (0)