ArticleTrials2020
Developing a roadmap to improve trial delivery for under-served groups: results from a UK multi-stakeholder process.
Article in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 148 papers, 15 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
148 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Language-related eligibility criteria in UK randomised trials: a systematic review of extended research reports.Trials · 2026Pooled it
- Equity and inclusion in UK adult social care: a systematic review of trials.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- How equitable is digital rehabilitation for people after stroke? A systematic review using an equity approach.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
- Factors that influence recruitment to COVID-19 vaccine trials: a qualitative evidence synthesis.Trials · 2024Pooled it
- Reporting and representation of underserved groups in intervention studies for patients with multiple long-term conditions: a systematic review.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Attitudes and Preferences Towards Screening for Dementia with a Focus on Ethnic Minority and Low Socio-Economic Groups: A Systematic Review of Research Studies Written in the English Language.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2024Pooled it
- Digital tools for direct assessment of autism risk during early childhood: A systematic review.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2024Pooled it
- REPRESENT recommendations: improving inclusion and trust in cancer early detection research.British journal of cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Including older people in health and social care research: best practice recommendations based on the INCLUDE framework.Age and ageing · 2023Guideline
- Recruitment and retention interventions in surgical and wound care trials: A systematic review.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Does weight management research for adults with severe obesity represent them? Analysis of systematic review data.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Examination of Sex-Specific Participant Inclusion in Exercise Physiology Endothelial Function Research: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Pooled it
- Patient participation in Delphi surveys to develop core outcome sets: systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for people living with motor neuron disease: the COMMEND feasibility study and randomised controlled trial.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy to improve insomnia disorder in primary care: the HABIT RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Trial
88 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundParticipants in clinical research studies often do not reflect the populations for which healthcare interventions are needed or will be used. Enhancing representation of under-served groups in clinical research is important to ensure that research findings are widely applicable. We describe a multicomponent workstream project to improve representation of under-served groups in clinical trials.
methodsThe project comprised three main strands: (1) a targeted scoping review of literature to identify previous work characterising under-served groups and barriers to inclusion, (2) surveys of professional stakeholders and participant representative groups involved in research delivery to refine these initial findings and identify examples of innovation and good practice and (3) a series of workshops bringing together key stakeholders from funding, design, delivery and participant groups to reach consensus on definitions, barriers and a strategic roadmap for future work. The work was commissioned by the UK National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network. Output from these strands was integrated by a steering committee to generate a series of goals, workstream plans and a strategic roadmap for future development work in this area.
results'Under-served groups' was identified and agreed by the stakeholder group as the preferred term. Three-quarters of stakeholders felt that a clear definition of under-served groups did not currently exist; definition was challenging and context-specific, but exemplar groups (e.g. those with language barriers or mental illness) were identified as under-served. Barriers to successful inclusion of under-served groups could be clustered into communication between research teams and participant groups; how trials are designed and delivered, differing agendas of research teams and participant groups; and lack of trust in the research process. Four key goals for future work were identified: building long-term relationships with under-served groups, developing training resources to improve design and delivery of trials for under-served groups, developing infrastructure and systems to support this work and working with funders, regulators and other stakeholders to remove barriers to inclusion.
conclusionsThe work of the INCLUDE group over the next 12 months will build on these findings by generating resources customised for different under-served groups to improve the representativeness of trial populations.
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.