ArticleTrials2026
Co-design of resources to support researchers to develop accessible and inclusive patient information leaflets for randomised controlled trials: the UK-based MAPLE project.
Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow English language literacy and diverse communication needs are widespread in the UK. Provision of lengthy and complex patient information leaflets (PILs) for clinical trials can impose a barrier to research participation. Inclusive research design incorporates providing clear and accessible written information, often in a layered approach. This project aimed to co-design resources to support researchers to create visual, inclusive, and accessible PILs for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsNineteen public and community involvement and engagement co-design workshops were held with nine groups, with a total of 150 attendees. Workshops were held with communities, patients, and charity representatives that are often marginalised in health research, including representation from racially marginalised communities, adults with learning disabilities and/or autism, adults with physical and mental health conditions, and the LGBTQIA+ community. A prototype modifiable accessible PIL was developed by the research team, designed using previously co-developed recommendations. During the first round of 10 workshops, a prototype accessible PIL was reviewed and discussed, and changes made to the phrasing, order, format, and layout. Additional feedback informed the development of guidance to researchers on the use of the accessible PIL. Suggestions for images for each section of the accessible PIL were collated and corresponding images sourced from online platforms. During the second round of nine co-design workshops, images were discussed and selected for inclusion, alongside recommendations for further edits and refinements to the accessible PIL and guidance to researchers.
resultsThe co-design process resulted in substantial changes to the prototype accessible PIL. A suite of resources were developed, including an adaptable accessible PIL that can be downloaded and modified offline for each RCT, a selection of images from which researchers can choose images to purchase from platforms to include in their accessible PIL, and additional guidance on the use and modification of the accessible PIL. The resources are available at https://maple.bristol.ac.uk/ .
conclusionThese co-designed practical resources aim to support researchers to create more accessible and inclusive written information to reduce English language literacy as a barrier to participation in RCTs, as part of a layered approach to information provision.
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.