ArticlePloS one2025
Who presents the greatest challenge in intellectual disability research- participants or health and research professionals?
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- What Makes Community Inclusion Work for Older Adults With an Intellectual Disability? An Application of the Normalisation Process Theory.Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 2026Article
- Correction: Who presents the greatest challenge in intellectual disability research- participants or health and research professionals?PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe challenges of recruitment to randomised controlled trials have been well documented. The additional challenges of recruiting people with intellectual disabilities (ID) and significant health co-morbidities have been the focus of less attention. The aim of this work was to explore issues around the screening and recruitment of adults with ID and Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) into the internal pilot of the 'My Diabetes and Me' Randomised Controlled Trial. The findings were used to develop recommendations and implement interventions to address challenges for recruitment to the main study.
methodsA multiple methods approach using the QuinteT Recruitment Intervention was employed across three National Health Service sites in the United Kingdom. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with staff, and adults with ID/T2D recruited to the study; analysis of recruitment discussion recordings, and a review of documentation pertaining to screening logs and research meetings was also performed. Thematic analysis identified the complexity of challenges and potential enablers to recruitment in this population.
resultsRecruitment challenges began much earlier than anticipated with significant organisational process challenges to be overcome. The discomfort felt by some staff in putting potential participants forward was evident as they don't feel the study is appropriate for this population, or they feel out of their depth. Engagement and 'buy-in' from people with ID/ T2D were much more positive. The emotional labour involved in ensuring the internal pilot progressed to the main study was noteworthy.
conclusionThe use of QRI methodology within an ID RCT is a novel approach, unearthing emotional challenges and significant systemic organisational process challenges. The findings of this study clearly illustrate the informed implementation strategies that are needed to improve recruitment processes, minimise the emotional labour relating to NHS organisational 'buy-in' and address the preparation and readiness of NHS health and social care staff for research in under-represented populations.
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.