ArticleGlobal advances in integrative medicine and health
Increasing Equity Within Randomized Control Trials: A Qualitative Analysis of Focus Groups From a Multi-Site, Pragmatic Clinical Trial.
Article in Global advances in integrative medicine and health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiences of pregnant and postpartum people of color engaged in a randomized clinical trial of medication to treat opioid use disorder during pregnancy: A "Positive Outliers" analysis.Journal of substance use and addiction treatment · 2026Article
- Barriers and Facilitators for Equitable Clinical Research Among Pragmatic Trialists: A Qualitative Study.Pragmatic and observational research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Underrepresentation of diverse populations in clinical trials poses challenges to equity and external validity in health care research. To successfully recruit underrepresented participants in pragmatic clinical trials, researchers must understand the perspectives and needs of individuals from diverse backgrounds who participate in research. Objective: The purpose of this qualitative study was to gain an understanding of the needs and perspectives of participants of the OPTIMUM trial -- a pragmatic trial evaluating mindfulness-based stress reduction for chronic low back pain. Methods: This qualitative study employed focus groups with participants from 3 clinical sites: Boston Medical Center, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the University of Pittsburgh. Focus group discussions centered on participants' experiences, barriers, and facilitators to engagement in the OPTIMUM trial. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis and the rapid qualitative analysis method, Lightning Reports, for real-time feedback integration into the trial process. Results: Six focus groups were conducted with 46 participants, of whom 39.1% were first-time research participants and 56.5% identified as Black or African American. Qualitative analysis identified five key themes:1) The importance of providers in the recruitment of cLBP patients, (2) Motivators to participate and stay engaged in clinical research, (3) Participant lack of understanding of randomized control trials (RCTs) and general research processes, (4) Desire for social connection and community-building among participants, and (5) the Positive impact of regular study staff interaction. Conclusion: Equity in RCTs requires intentional strategies to address barriers to participation and engagement faced by historically underrepresented populations. Engaging health care providers in recruitment, fostering positive interactions with study staff, and creating opportunities for social connection can improve recruitment, retention, and engagement. Incorporating community-engaged research methods and real-time feedback mechanisms can further support inclusivity and equity in pragmatic clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.