Only 3 of 27 US psychedelic therapy trials used community-engaged research methods

The question

Do researchers running psychedelic-assisted therapy trials in the United States use community-engaged research methods, an approach known to help recruit more diverse participants?

What they did

The authors reviewed 10 years of US clinical trials of psilocybin, MDMA and LSD used alongside therapy, ending up with 27 studies. They rated each one against a standard framework called the Continuum of Community Engagement, which describes levels of partnership between researchers and the communities they study. They also contacted each study team directly to check they had not missed anything.

What they found

Only 3 of the 27 studies (11.11 %) used any community-engaged research practices. In those few cases, the engagement was limited to community consultation, which sits at the lower end of the framework and involves relatively little involvement from community members. The authors set out five recommendations, including mapping and engaging local stakeholders, using existing university and hospital infrastructure, co-designing research and outreach with communities, funding this work specifically, and building in ongoing evaluation.

The fine print

This review counts research practices; it does not measure whether community engagement actually increased enrolment of people of colour in these trials. It covers only US trials of three drugs over a 10-year window, so findings may not apply elsewhere. Judging engagement from published reports and team correspondence can miss informal efforts. This summary is based on the abstract only.

What it means

Community-engaged research methods have rarely been used in US psychedelic therapy trials, which the authors argue may be one reason participants in this field have not been racially and ethnically diverse.

Evidence grade: Low. A systematic review that counts research practices across trials rather than measuring health outcomes, and it relies on what study teams published or reported back.

This summary is based on the study’s published abstract.