Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34863265›Full record

ReviewTrials2021

Promoting inclusion in clinical trials-a rapid review of the literature and recommendations for action.

Danielle H Bodicoat, Ash C Routen, Andrew Willis, Winifred Ekezie, Clare Gillies, Claire Lawson, Thomas Yates, Francesco Zaccardi, Melanie J Davies, Kamlesh Khunti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 123 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
123citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

123 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Psychosocial Correlates of Adherence to Mind-Body Interventions.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2025
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Faith, Culture, and Cancer: A Qualitative Study Exploring Muslim Women's Perspectives on Clinical Trials in the United Kingdom.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

63 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Danielle H BodicoatIndependent Researcher, Leicester, UK.
Ash C RoutenCentre for Ethnic Health Research, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5651-4228
Andrew WillisCentre for Ethnic Health Research, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK.
Winifred EkezieCentre for Ethnic Health Research, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK.
Clare GilliesDiabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK.
Claire LawsonLeicester Real World Evidence Unit, Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK.
Thomas YatesDiabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK.
Francesco ZaccardiLeicester Real World Evidence Unit, Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK.
Melanie J DaviesDiabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK.
Kamlesh KhuntiCentre for Ethnic Health Research, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK. kk22@leicester.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWithout inclusion of diverse research participants, it is challenging to understand how study findings will translate into the real world. Despite this, a lack of inclusion of those from under-served groups in research is a prevailing problem due to multi-faceted barriers acting at multiple levels. Therefore, we rapidly reviewed international published literature, in relation to clinical trials, on barriers relating to inclusion, and evidence of approaches that are effective in overcoming these.

methodsA rapid literature review was conducted searching PubMed for peer-reviewed articles that discussed barriers to inclusion or strategies to improve inclusion in clinical trial research published between 2010 and 2021. Grey literature articles were excluded.

resultsSeventy-two eligible articles were included. The main barriers identified were language and communication, lack of trust, access to trials, eligibility criteria, attitudes and beliefs, lack of knowledge around clinical trials, and logistical and practical issues. In relation to evidence-based strategies and enablers, two key themes arose: [1] a multi-faceted approach is essential [2]; no single strategy was universally effective either within or between trials. The key evidence-based strategies identified were cultural competency training, community partnerships, personalised approach, multilingual materials and staff, communication-specific strategies, increasing understanding and trust, and tackling logistical barriers.

conclusionsMany of the barriers relating to inclusion are the same as those that impact trial design and healthcare delivery generally. However, the presentation of these barriers among different under-served groups may be unique to each population's particular circumstances, background, and needs. Based on the literature, we make 15 recommendations that, if implemented, may help improve inclusion within clinical trials and clinical research more generally. The three main recommendations include improving cultural competency and sensitivity of all clinical trial staff through training and ongoing personal development, the need to establish a diverse community advisory panel for ongoing input into the research process, and increasing recruitment of staff from under-served groups. Implementation of these recommendations may help improve representation of under-served groups in clinical trials which would improve the external validity of associated findings.

Indexed as

CommunicationCultural CompetencyAttitudeHumansClinical researchClinical trialDiversityEqualityEthnicityInclusionReview

Identifiers

PMID34863265
PMCPMC8643184

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.