ArticlePragmatic and observational research2026
Barriers and Facilitators for Equitable Clinical Research Among Pragmatic Trialists: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Pragmatic and observational research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: There is a growing urgency to address health inequities in clinical trial design. Pragmatic trials hold promise in addressing inequities in research. We conducted a rapid qualitative analysis of barriers and facilitators to implementing health equity practices in pragmatic trials within the NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory, informed by the DUSON-INFUSE checklist. Participants and Methods: A descriptive qualitative design was used to address barriers and facilitators to equitable pragmatic trials. Twelve semi-structured interviews with primary investigators and research associates were conducted. Included trials were selected to represent a variety of phases of funding and study progress to examine the full lifecycle of research. Interview transcripts were summarized using a standardized matrix. Rapid qualitative analysis was implemented to condense data into four emergent themes. Results: Trialists were in the enrollment (n=8), follow-up (n=1), and completion (n=3) phases of their research. Study themes described how (1) funding timelines dictate community relationship building, (2) concordant identities between research teams and study populations promote equity, (3) community alignment on priorities facilitates success, and (4) intervention flexibility is necessary to support participant engagement. Conclusion: To optimize the potential for pragmatic clinical trials to reduce health inequities, all phases of research must be designed with health equity in mind. This includes funding timelines and research budget planning that leave space for relationship building, as well as co-developed priorities between investigators and communities to ensure research fosters trust and engagement.
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.