ArticleBMC psychiatry2026
A data-driven methodological framework for representative recruitment in psychiatric research: insights from the DOCUMENT study.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSlow participant recruitment is one of the predominant determinants of failure or delay across clinical research. Even when recruitment targets are met, study populations may be unrepresentative due to sampling biases introduced by recruitment pathways. However, the effectiveness and demographic consequences of recruitment strategies are frequently underreported, undermining the generalisability of clinical findings and contributing to research waste. This study provides a data-driven, quantitative evaluation of multimodal recruitment strategies in psychiatric research, leveraging insights from the DOCUMENT study to synthesise a methodological framework for effective and representative participant recruitment.
methodsBetween June 2022 and December 2024, the study utilised a multimodal strategy to recruit participants with major depressive disorder (MDD), schizophrenia (SZ), and healthy volunteers (HV) for a two-phase study to investigate cognitive deficits across groups. Recruitment strategies included NHS clinical services, electronic health records, research registries, primary care sites, online and social media advertising, printed material, institutional resources, and word of mouth. For each avenue, yield, proportion of diagnostic group, recruitment rate, eligibility fraction, labour and financial cost, and demographic skew were quantified.
resultsAcross avenues, 194 participants were recruited (66 HV, 77 MDD and 51 SZ), with high retention (86-97%). Recruitment efficacy varied substantially by diagnostic group, with online advertising and research registries successfully recruiting MDD and HV participants but failing to recruit eligible people with SZ. Instead, SZ participants were primarily enrolled from labour-intensive clinical avenues (94%). Online recruitment showed higher accrual, but lower eligibility fraction compared to clinical pathways, revealing systematic sampling differences. Despite avenue-specific sampling biases, the multimodal approach yielded close demographic alignment to the 2021 UK Census for London in the study population. Data-driven adaptations, such as protocol amendments to eligibility criteria and online self-report triaging, improved study feasibility.
conclusionsNo single recruitment avenue was identified as sufficient for both efficient and representative psychiatric recruitment. Instead, multimodal strategies were necessary to dilute avenue sampling biases. Synthesising 30 months of data, we introduce a 10-point framework for enhancing recruitment effectiveness, feasibility, and representativeness. While grounded in UK-based psychiatric research, these principles are likely transferable to broader clinical research contexts to reduce research waste. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.