Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15904499›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2005

Recruitment of ethnic minority patients to a cardiac rehabilitation trial: the Birmingham Rehabilitation Uptake Maximisation (BRUM) study [ISRCTN72884263].

Kate Jolly, Gregory Y Lip, Rod S Taylor, Jonathan W Mant, Deirdre A Lane, Kaeng W Lee, Andrew J Stevens, BRUM Steering Committee

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Patient-initiated recruitment for clinical research: Evaluation of an outpatient letter research statement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kate JollyDepartment of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, England. C.B.Jolly@bham.ac.uk
Gregory Y Lip
Rod S Taylor
Jonathan W Mant
Deirdre A Lane
Kaeng W Lee
Andrew J Stevens
BRUM Steering Committee
University of Birmingham · GBBirmingham City Hospital · GB

Funding

Department of Health 99/32/09
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConcerns have been raised about low participation rates of people from minority ethnic groups in clinical trials. However, the evidence is unclear as many studies do not report the ethnicity of participants and there is insufficient information about the reasons for ineligibility by ethnic group. Where there are data, there remains the key question as to whether ethnic minorities more likely to be ineligible (e.g. due to language) or decline to participate. We have addressed these questions in relation to the Birmingham Rehabilitation Uptake Maximisation (BRUM) study, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing a home-based with a hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation programme in a multi-ethnic population in the UK.

methodsAnalysis of the ethnicity, age and sex of presenting and recruited subjects for a trial of cardiac rehabilitation in the West-Midlands, UK.

participants1997 patients presenting post-myocardial infarction, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. DATA COLLECTED: Exclusion rates, reasons for exclusion and reasons for declining to participate in the trial by ethnic group.

resultsSignificantly more patients of South Asian ethnicity were excluded (52% of 'South Asian' v 36% 'White European' and 36% 'Other', p < 0.001). This difference in eligibility was primarily due to exclusion on the basis of language (i.e. the inability to speak English or Punjabi). Of those eligible, similar proportions were recruited from the different ethnic groups (white, South Asian and other). There was a marked difference in eligibility between people of Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin.

conclusionOnce eligible for this trial, people from different ethnic groups were recruited in similar proportions. The reason for ineligibility in the BRUM study was the inability to support the range of minority languages.

Indexed as

Asian PeopleMinority GroupsPatient SelectionAgedAngioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryCardiology Service, HospitalCoronary Artery BypassFemaleHome Care ServicesHumansLanguageMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionOutcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID15904499
PMCPMC1166559
OpenAlexW1789076321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.