Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41654869›Full record

ArticleTrials2026

The undue burdens of clinical trial participation: implications for equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Emma Law, Kate Chatfield

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Emma LawProtas, 2 New Bailey, 6 Stanley Street, Salford, Greater Manchester, M3 5GS, UK. emma.law@protas.co.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-1220-3040
Kate ChatfieldCentre for Professional Ethics, University of Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8109-0535

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A wide range of factors has detrimental impacts upon equity, diversity, and inclusion in clinical trials, amongst which participant burden can be significant. In addition to the potential physical burdens associated with investigational interventions, participants may face onerous demands related to factors like travel, time commitments, psychological, or logistical challenges. Many of these factors have been shown to create barriers that disproportionately affect certain groups like minoritised ethnic groups, people with caring responsibilities, and older adults. One increasingly problematic aspect of participant burden is associated with an excessive volume of data collection, much of which may lack direct relevance to the study's primary objectives and may never be analysed. Although pragmatic and participant-centred trial methodologies have risen in prominence over the past decade, quantitative evidence demonstrates that trial complexity and data volumes are continuing to rise. The widening gap between the notion of participant-centricity and the realities of current trial practice underscores the need for a shift in approach. Reducing unnecessary burden should be regarded as a moral obligation across all clinical trial designs to avoid the systematic exclusion of certain groups. With a focus on data-related aspects, this paper examines the ethical implications of undue burdens upon participants and proposes measures to help minimise and mitigate these burdens. In addressing this issue, researchers contribute to broader efforts to enhance inclusivity and representation in clinical studies.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicPatient SelectionResearch SubjectsCultural DiversityDiversity, Equity, InclusionHumansResearch DesignEquality, diversity, and inclusionParticipation burdensResearch ethicsTrial designUndue burdens in clinical trials

Identifiers

PMID41654869
PMCPMC12882127

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.