ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2026
Bridging policy gaps in clinical trial volunteering: public and healthcare professional perspectives in England.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine organisational leave policies for clinical trial participation in England and compare willingness between the public and healthcare professionals (HPs) under varying leave conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Freedom of information (FOI) requests were submitted to 378 public-sector organisations to identify policies supporting leave for clinical trial participation. Parallel cross-sectional surveys of the public (n=503; working-age adults) and HPs (n=110) assessed willingness to participate as a healthy volunteer (HV) or patient (P) in scenarios requiring annual leave (AL) or unpaid leave (UL). Free-text responses were analysed thematically. Group comparisons used χ² tests, and multivariable logistic regression examined predictors of willingness, adjusting for demographic and employment characteristics.
resultsFive organisations (1.3%) reported an explicit policy addressing clinical trial leave while 336 (88.9%) reported none. Across all scenarios, public respondents were more willing to participate than HPs, particularly for HV participation using AL (78.9% vs 63.6%; p=0.001). In adjusted analyses, HPs had lower odds of willingness than public respondents for HV-AL (aOR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.85), P-AL (aOR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.98) and P-UL (aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.96). Willingness declined when UL was required. No association was observed between Index of Multiple Deprivation decile and willingness. Financial concerns were the main barrier among the public, whereas HPs cited limited availability of AL.
conclusionsThere is a widespread lack of organisational policies supporting clinical trial participation leave, and willingness is highly sensitive to whether leave is paid. This is particularly relevant in ophthalmology, where trials often involve repeated, time-intensive visits and reliance on working-age carers. Limitations include non-probability sampling, uncalculated survey response rates, self-reported willingness, a small regionally recruited HP sample and restriction to public-sector FOI data. Employment policy represents an under-recognised structural determinant of clinical trial participation, with implications for ophthalmology research.
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.