Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39139271›Full record

ArticleNIHR open research2023

Enablers and barriers to engaging under-served groups in research: Survey of the United Kingdom research professional's views.

Dorothy Coe, Theophile Bigirumurame, Meera Burgess, John Rouse, Caroline Wroe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NIHR open research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Dorothy CoeNewcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9982-1567
Theophile BigirumuramePopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2387-4918
Meera BurgessClinical Research Network Coordinating Centre, National Institute for Health and Care Research, NIHR, UK.
John RouseClinical Research Network North East and North Cumbria, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Regent Point, Newcastle, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7512-1072
Caroline WroeNewcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6909-7726

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: There is a known lack of diversity in research participant populations. This impacts on the generalisability of findings and affects clinician prescribing. In the United Kingdom the research community defines those who are underrepresented as under-served. They are commonly those affected by health inequality and disparity. The notion of under-served is complex, with numerous papers identifying multiple factors that contribute to being under-served and in turn suggesting many strategies to improve engagement. Methods: Research professionals in the UK were invited to complete an online survey. The broad aim was to explore their views on under-served groups. The findings were analysed using statistical and qualitative methods to identify enablers and barriers to engaging the under-served. Descriptive statistics were utilised with associations compared univariately by chi-square test and logistic regression for multivariable analysis. Results: A total of 945 completed responses were received. Those identified as under-served in this study reflected the previous body of works with a broader descriptor of ethnic and cultural minorities and the addition of adolescents and young adults. Language and literacy skills had the most impact on being under-served. Only 13% of respondents said they felt equipped to meet the needs of the under-served. The main strategy to increase diversity was community engagement and movement of research delivery into the community. The barriers were funding and time. Training needs identified were linked to community engagement, cultural competence and consent processes. Conclusions: The UK findings from research professionals reflected the previous literature. Adolescents and young people were added to those identified as under-served. Enablers included community outreach and improvement to communication. Barriers were time, funding, organisational processes and lack of focus. Issues were identified with translation and interpretation services. Training requirements focus on methodologies and methods to engage and the consent processes of those from under-served groups.

Indexed as

barriers.enablersResearch inclusionresearch participationunderrepresentedunder-served

Identifiers

PMID39139271
PMCPMC11319909

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.