ArticleTrials2019
Protection by exclusion? The (lack of) inclusion of adults who lack capacity to consent to research in clinical trials in the UK.
Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
56 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in Psychosocial Research for Adults With Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Review.Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 2026Pooled it
- How equitable is digital rehabilitation for people after stroke? A systematic review using an equity approach.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
- How do quantitative studies involving people with dementia report experiences of standardised data collection? A narrative synthesis of NIHR published studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Pooled it
- Including older people in health and social care research: best practice recommendations based on the INCLUDE framework.Age and ageing · 2023Guideline
- Effectiveness of treatments for people living with severe dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials.Ageing research reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Comparing in-person and remote consent of people with dementia into a primary care-based cluster randomised controlled trial: lessons from the Dementia PersonAlised Care Team (D-PACT) feasibility study.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Pragmatic Trial of Personalized Music for Agitation and Antipsychotic Use in Nursing Home Residents With Dementia.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Challenges and Strategies in Interviewing People With Acquired Brain Injury and Communication Impairment in Qualitative Interview Studies: A Secondary Analysis of Interview Data.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Article
- Article
- Secondary prevention of myocardial infarction in people with dementia: a multi-jurisdictional retrospective cohort study in Asia, Europe and the USA.Age and ageing · 2026Article
- Evaluating the user experience of the Beacon Decision Support System: a mixed-methods study of a digital platform for equity-oriented cancer care.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Introducing the Metaphorical Anchor Model: A Mixed-Methods Study of Cognitive Metaphor Use in Palliative Care.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Acceptability, Feasibility, and Perceived Effectiveness of Video-Based Patient Records for Supporting Care Delivery to Older Adults With Frailty: Nonrandomized Mixed Methods Pilot Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- A scoping review of randomised controlled trials of vaccines that recruited care home residents: lessons for future trials.Age and ageing · 2025Article
- Neuropsychiatric research databases for people with intellectual disabilities and epilepsy (REFINE): a feasibility study protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- A Call for Inclusion: Children With Intellectual Disabilities in Trauma Treatment Research.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAround two million adults in the UK have significantly impaired decision-making capacity. However, there are concerns that this population is under-represented in research, due in part to the challenges around obtaining consent. Under-representation of populations denies those who would have wanted to participate the opportunity to make a contribution to society, but also fails to generate results that are applicable to them. Consequently, the evidence base for their care is poorer than for other populations. We recently published in this journal an analysis of Participant Information Sheets provided to consultees and legal representatives of adults who lack capacity and noted the small number of trials designed to include adults who lack capacity. In order to understand how many adults who lack capacity to consent are actually enrolled in clinical trials, we further explored how many of the participants lacked capacity, and who acted as a consultee or legal representative on their behalf. MAIN TEXT: The ISRCTN registry was searched for UK clinical trials in conditions commonly associated with cognitive impairment that were designed to include (or not exclude) adults who lack capacity to consent. Details about participants and capacity status were obtained from published data or directly from the trial teams. Of the 80 retrieved clinical trials that had completed in the previous 3 years, we identified 15 which included adults who lack capacity to consent. Data regarding participants' capacity status were not available for five trials. Where capacity was reported, 5-100% participants lacked capacity to consent. Trials predominantly utilised personal consultees/legal representatives; however, 39% (634/1631) of participants required a professional to act as consultee/legal representative.
conclusionsOnly a small number of trials including adults who lacked capacity were identified. The majority of participants were represented by a personal consultee/legal representative; however, between 21 and 100% of participants across five trials required the involvement of a professional, suggesting it is not uncommon. Data relating to capacity status were rarely reported, potentially masking the under-representation of adults who lack capacity. The findings may help researchers and funders target resources towards studies involving under-represented populations to increase the much-needed evidence base for their care and treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.