Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32738919›Full record

ArticleTrials2020

Developing a roadmap to improve trial delivery for under-served groups: results from a UK multi-stakeholder process.

Miles D Witham, Eleanor Anderson, Camille Carroll, Paul M Dark, Kim Down, Alistair S Hall, Joanna Knee, Rebecca H Maier, Gail A Mountain, Gary Nestor and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
148citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

148 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Digital tools for direct assessment of autism risk during early childhood: A systematic review.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2024
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Guideline
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

88 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

16 authors.

Miles D WithamNIHR Clinical Research Network Cluster E, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle University, Newcastle, NE4 5PL, UK.
Eleanor AndersonNIHR Clinical Research Network Cluster E, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle University, Newcastle, NE4 5PL, UK.
Camille CarrollUniversity of Plymouth, Faculty of Health, Plymouth, Devon, UK.
Paul M DarkNIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, University of Manchester and Northern Care Alliance NHS Group, Manchester, UK.
Kim DownNIHR Clinical Research Network Cluster E, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle University, Newcastle, NE4 5PL, UK.
Alistair S HallCardiology Department, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, LS1 3EX, UK.
Joanna KneeNIHR Clinical Research Network Coordinating Centre, 21 Queen Street, Leeds, LS1 2TW, UK.
Rebecca H MaierNewcastle Clinical Trials Unit, 1-4 Claremont Terrace, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AE, UK.
Gail A MountainCentre for Applied Dementia Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Gary NestorNIHR Clinical Research Network Cluster E, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle University, Newcastle, NE4 5PL, UK.
Laurie OlivaNIHR Clinical Research Network Coordinating Centre, London, UK.
Sarah R ProwseInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Amanda TorticeNIHR Yorkshire and Humber Local Clinical Research Network, Yorkshire and Humber, UK.
James WasonPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Lynn RochesterNIHR Clinical Research Network Cluster E, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle University, Newcastle, NE4 5PL, UK. lynn.rochester@newcastle.ac.uk.
INCLUDE writing group

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/6National Institute for Health Research N/A
6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical Trials as TopicMedically Underserved AreaPatient ParticipationResearch DesignTrustConsensusCross-Sectional StudiesHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomRecruitmentRoadmapStakeholderTrialsUnder-served

Identifiers

PMID32738919
PMCPMC7395975

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.