Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39334243›Full record

ReviewTrials2024

Recommendations for developing accessible patient information leaflets for clinical trials to address English language literacy as a barrier to research participation.

Vikki Wylde, Sharon Brennan, Emma Johnson, Kirsty Roberts, Andrew D Beswick, Catherine Jameson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Historical Advances in Clinical Trial Design and Expanding Representation as the New Frontier for Innovation.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025
    Article
  9. 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.

Vikki WyldeMusculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. v.wylde@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8460-1529
Sharon BrennanNational Voices, London, UK.
Emma JohnsonMusculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Kirsty RobertsBristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Andrew D BeswickMusculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Catherine JamesonMusculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow English language literacy is a common barrier to participation in clinical trials. Patient information leaflets (PILs) used in clinical trials are often lengthy, complex and have poor readability; this is a persistent and prevalent problem common to trials across the world. Simplifying the information provided in PILs can lead to improved understanding, comprehension and knowledge. The aim of this project was to develop recommendations for developing accessible PILs for clinical trials through a literature review of published and grey literature and co-working with marginalised communities, patients, and health and social care charities.

methodsA literature review of MEDLINE, Embase and online resources was conducted, and recommendations for developing accessible PILs were extracted from eligible published and grey literature. Grey literature which contained insights into more inclusive forms of communication was also identified and summarised. Meetings were held with two racially marginalised community groups, two groups involving autistic adults and/or adults with learning difficulties and a patient advisory group. Examples of accessible PILs were shared and discussions held about the content and format of the PILs and suggestions for changes/improvements. National Voices, a coalition of health and social care charities in England, held a national online workshop with charities and lived experience partners. Recommendations identified from the multiple sources were coded, collated and refined to develop an overarching framework of recommendations.

resultsThe framework consists of 74 recommendations for developing accessible PILs for clinical trials. Recommendations cover the five topics of formatting, information presentation, writing style, content and accessibility.

conclusionsThis project has developed a comprehensive framework of recommendations to guide researchers in the development of accessible PILs for clinical trials. Findings from previous research and from co-working with marginalised communities, patients and health and social care charities were collated to ensure that a diverse range of voices and experiences informed the framework. These recommendations aim to support researchers to develop better study information to reduce English language literacy as a barrier to participation in clinical trials.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicComprehensionHealth LiteracyPamphletsPatient Education as TopicAccess to InformationCommunication BarriersHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansLanguageLimited English ProficiencyPatient SelectionResearch SubjectsAccessibleClinical trialsEasy-readPatient information leafletRecommendations

Identifiers

PMID39334243
PMCPMC11430508

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.