Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40109939›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2025

Developing the evidence-base to inform policy on inclusive research design.

Stella A Child, Christina Mulligan, Ivan Pavlov, Simone Bryan, Leah Li, Rachel Louise Knowles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Stella A ChildMedical Research Council, Swindon, UK.
Christina MulliganMedical Research Council, Swindon, UK.
Ivan PavlovMedical Research Council, Swindon, UK.
Simone BryanMedical Research Council, Swindon, UK.
Leah LiPopulation, Policy and Practice Research and Teaching Department, UCL Great Ormond St Institute of Child Health, London, UK.
Rachel Louise KnowlesMedical Research Council, Swindon, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5490-7682

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Considering diversity when designing and conducting research is fundamental to the responsible conduct of research and ensures that outputs from scientific research are reproducible, minimize bias and enable everyone within society the opportunity to benefit. Therefore, health and biomedical research should include consideration of diversity and inclusion in the way studies are designed and conducted. An evaluation of health researchers' approaches to diversity was undertaken to generate evidence to inform research policy development by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC). Seven hundred and seventy-two researchers responded to an anonymized public survey about diversity and inclusion in research design and 590 applications for research funding were evaluated. Fifty per cent of survey respondents undertaking human participant research reported taking diversity, usually age and sex, into account. Although 43% of animal researchers reported using females and males, only 28% of grant applications demonstrated this. Our findings demonstrate that many researchers do not routinely consider diversity when designing research. Furthermore, we identified a gap between what animal researchers reported doing and what was evident in funding applications. Informed by this analysis, MRC implemented a new policy requiring researchers to demonstrate how they embed diversity and inclusion in research design. This survey provides a benchmark for evaluating policy impact.

Indexed as

diversityinclusionresearch policyresponsible conduct of research

Identifiers

PMID40109939
PMCPMC11919494

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.