Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36210444›Full record

ArticleTrials2022

Evaluating a tool to improve engagement and recruitment of under-served groups in trials.

Lydia Morris, Jo Dumville, Shaun Treweek, Nasima Miah, Ffion Curtis, Peter Bower

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors.

Lydia MorrisNIHR Applied Research Collaboration Greater Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Research and Innovation Division, Manchester University Foundation NHS Trust, Manchester, UK. lydia.morris@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3337-8144
Jo DumvilleNIHR Applied Research Collaboration Greater Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Research and Innovation Division, Manchester University Foundation NHS Trust, Manchester, UK.
Shaun TreweekHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Nasima MiahThe Centre for Ethnic Health Research, NIHR ARC East Midlands, Nottingham, UK.
Ffion CurtisThe Centre for Ethnic Health Research, NIHR ARC East Midlands, Nottingham, UK.
Peter BowerNIHR Applied Research Collaboration Greater Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Research and Innovation Division, Manchester University Foundation NHS Trust, Manchester, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite substantial awareness that certain groups (e.g. ethnic minorities) are under-represented and under-served in trials, limited progress has been made in addressing this. As well as a public service and ethical duty to recruit and engage under-served groups in relevant research, importantly, there are clear scientific benefits, for example, increased generalisability. The key aims of the current study were to explore the following: general barriers and facilitators to enhancing the recruitment of under-served groups into trials, the usability and value of a specific tool (INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework) to support engagement and recruitment of under-served groups, and ways of engaging diverse patient, public and community involvement and engagement (PCIE) groups.

methodsFirstly, researchers completed a brief survey in relation to a specific trial in which they were involved (N = 182, 38% response rate). A second stage involved sampling survey respondents and asking them to complete the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework and then a remote semi-structured interview (N = 15). Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. Finally, we conducted a consultation process with PCIE contributors primarily to develop guidelines for discussing the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework with PCIE representatives.

resultsResearchers recognised the importance of increasing engagement and recruitment of under-served groups within trials, but varied in their knowledge, ability and commitment to implementation in practice. The INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework was described by some as raising their awareness of how inclusion could be improved. Respondents highlighted a need for shared resources and wider structural change to facilitate such engagement. PCIE was identified, in the survey and interviews, as the most common method of trying to improve recruitment of under-served groups. However, researchers also commonly highlighted that PCIE groups were sometimes not very diverse.

conclusionsThere is a need for researchers to consider the funding and time resources required for diverse and inclusive recruitment to trials and for funders to enable this. The INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework can help to raise awareness of inclusion challenges. This study indicates that it is important to take proactive steps to involve relevant under-served groups in PCIE and practical suggestions are made to facilitate this.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicResearch DesignHumansResearch PersonnelSurveys and QuestionnairesEthnic minority groupsInclusion under-served groupsMinoritised groupsPatientpublic and community involvement and engagement (PCIE)public involvement (PPI)Trial methodology

Identifiers

PMID36210444
PMCPMC9549666

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.