ReviewTrials2020
Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators.
Review in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 125 papers, 9 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
125 citing papers in PubMed, 9 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
- Pooled it
- Clinicians' and Patients' Experiences and Perceptions on the Prevention and Management of Surgical Site Infections: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.Journal of clinical nursing · 2025Pooled it
- Can we achieve better trial recruitment by presenting patient information through multimedia? Meta-analysis of 'studies within a trial' (SWATs).BMC medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Providing multimedia information to children and young people increases recruitment to trials: pre-planned meta-analysis of SWATs.BMC medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Axes of social inequities in COVID-19 clinical trials: A systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Can we achieve better recruitment by providing better information? Meta-analysis of 'studies within a trial' (SWATs) of optimised participant information sheets.BMC medicine · 2021Pooled it
- The Challenges of Enrollment and Retention: A Systematic Review of Psychosocial Behavioral Interventions for Patients With Cancer and Their Family Caregivers.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2021Pooled it
- Exploring the experiences and perceptions of co-administration of routine vaccines in adults: Findings from an embedded qualitative study with participants and research delivery staff in the ZosterFluCov randomized controlled trial.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Trial
- Motivations and experiences of patients with respiratory disease and their caregivers in a multinational trial of mirtazapine for severe breathlessness: a qualitative study (BETTER-B).BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Trial
- Perceived Need and Social Relatedness Contribute to Change in Selective Prevention for Mental Illness: a Mixed Methods Study.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2025Trial
- Can a Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) Informed Participant Information Leaflet (PIL) Improve Trial Recruitment, Retention, and Quality of Decision Making? Results of a Randomised Controlled Double-Blind Study Within a Trial (SWAT).Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Experiences of rehabilitation one year after breast cancer diagnosis-A focus group study from the ReScreen randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2025Trial
- Participant Motivators and Expectations in the MEL-SELF Randomized Clinical Trial of Patient-Led Surveillance for Recurrent Melanoma: Content Analysis of Survey Responses.JMIR dermatology · 2024Trial
- Low-dose titrated amitriptyline as second-line treatment for adults with irritable bowel syndrome in primary care: the ATLANTIS RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Trial
- The motivation of breast cancer patients to participate in a national randomized control trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Trial
65 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding why people take part in health research is critical to improve research efficiency and generalisability. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews was to identify psychosocial determinants of research participation and map them to psychological theory and empirical recruitment research, to identify effective strategies to increase research participation.
methodsQualitative and quantitative systematic reviews were systematically identified. No date or language limits were applied. Two reviewers independently selected reviews. Methodological quality was rated using AMSTAR, and poor-quality reviews (scoring 0-3) were excluded. Barriers and facilitators were coded to psychological theory (Theoretical Domains Framework) and empirical recruitment research (recruitment interventions that had been subjected to randomised controlled trial evaluation).
resultsWe included 26 systematic reviews (429 unique primary studies), covering a wide range of patient populations and health settings. We identified five groups of facilitators, of which three were dominant (potential for personal benefit, altruism, trust) and appear to be relevant across research setting and design. We identified nine groups of barriers, which were more dependent on the particular study (context, population, design). Two determinants (participant information, social influences) were found to be both barriers and facilitators. Barriers and facilitators could be coded to the Motivation and Opportunity components of the Theoretical Domains Framework; only one was coded to a Capability component. There was some overlap between psychosocial determinants and empirical recruitment research, but some barriers and facilitators had not been tested at all.
conclusionsIdentifying effective recruitment strategies could increase the efficiency and generalisability of primary research. We identified a number of barriers and facilitators that could be addressed by researchers. There is a need for more research to identify effective recruitment strategies that draw on the psychosocial facilitators and barriers identified in this overview.
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.