| Title: |
Barriers and facilitators to the recruitment of disabled people to clinical trials: a scoping review |
| Authors: |
Shariq, S; Cardoso Pinto, AM; Budhathoki, SS; Miller, M; Cro, S |
| Source: |
13 ; 1 |
| Publisher Information: |
BioMed Central |
| Publication Year: |
2023 |
| Collection: |
Imperial College London: Spiral |
| Description: |
Introduction Underrepresentation of disabled groups in clinical trials results in an inadequate evidence base for their clinical care, which drives health inequalities. This study aims to review and map the potential barriers and facilitators to the recruitment of disabled people in clinical trials to identify knowledge gaps and areas for further extensive research. The review addresses the question: ‘What are the barriers and facilitators to recruitment of disabled people to clinical trials?’. Methods The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Scoping review guidelines were followed to complete the current scoping review. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched via Ovid. The literature search was guided by a combination of four key concepts from the research question: (1) disabled populations, (2) patient recruitment, (3) barriers and facilitators, and (4) clinical trials. Papers discussing barriers and facilitators of all types were included. Papers that did not have at least one disabled group as their population were excluded. Data on study characteristics and identified barriers and facilitators were extracted. Identified barriers and facilitators were then synthesised according to common themes. Results The review included 56 eligible papers. The evidence on barriers and facilitators was largely sourced from Short Communications from Researcher Perspectives (N = 22) and Primary Quantitative Research (N = 17). Carer perspectives were rarely represented in articles. The most common disability types for the population of interest in the literature were neurological and psychiatric disabilities. A total of five emergent themes were determined across the barriers and facilitators. These were as follows: risk vs benefit assessment, design and management of recruitment protocol, balancing internal and external validity considerations, consent and ethics, and systemic factors. Conclusions Both barriers and facilitators were often highly specific to disability type and context. Assumptions should be minimised, and study ... |
| Document Type: |
article in journal/newspaper |
| Language: |
unknown |
| Relation: |
Trials; http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/102926 |
| DOI: |
10.1186/s13063-023-07142-1 |
| Availability: |
http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/102926; https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07142-1 |
| Rights: |
© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. ; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
| Accession Number: |
edsbas.F8757C78 |
| Database: |
BASE |