ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Time to STEP UP: methods and findings from the development of guidance to help researchers design inclusive clinical trials.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Provision of knee bracing for knee osteoarthritis (PROP OA): multicentre, parallel group, superiority, statistician blinded, randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Trial
- Article
- Strategies employed to facilitate representativeness in hematology clinical research: a survey of ASH investigators.Blood advances · 2026Article
- Recruitment of older adults to clinical trials in the Emergency Department: A qualitative study with clinical trial stakeholders.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Equitable inclusion of people with disabilities in clinical trials: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Article
- Co-designing accessible trial information: lessons from designing an inclusive patient information leaflet in the RaCeR2 study.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Inclusive methodological awareness for equity and diversity in biomedical research.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Article
- Development of a digital, self-guided return-to-work toolkit for stroke survivors and employers using intervention mapping.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Inclusion of under-served groups in trials: an audit at a UK primary care clinical trials unit.Trials · 2025Article
- Update on the genetics of allergic diseases.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2025Review
- Inclusivity of the target population in orthopaedic surgical randomised trials: a review of high impact journals.NIHR open research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt is important to design clinical trials to include all those who may benefit from the intervention being tested. Several frameworks have been developed to help researchers think about the barriers to inclusion of particular under-served groups when designing a trial, but there is a lack of practical guidance on how to implement these frameworks. This paper describes the ACCESS project, the findings from each phase of the project and the guidance we developed (STEP UP) on how to design more inclusive trials.
methodsDevelopment of the STEP UP guidance had five phases: (1) Scoping literature review, (2) 'roundtable' discussion meetings, (3) redesign of trials, (4) interviews and (5) guidance document development, with input from public contributors and the ACCESS team.
resultsOver 40 experts contributed to the ACCESS project-patients and the public, clinicians, NHS research staff, trialists and other academics. The scoping review identified several strategies being used to improve inclusion, mostly around recruitment settings, but there was little evaluation of these strategies. The 'roundtable' discussions identified additional strategies being used across the UK and Ireland to improve inclusion, which were grouped into: Communication, Community engagement, Recruitment sites, Patient information, Flexibility, Recruitment settings, Consent process, Monitoring, Training for researchers and Incentives. These strategies were used to redesign three existing trials by applying one of the three INCLUDE frameworks (ethnicity, socioeconomic disadvantage, impaired capacity to consent) to one trial each, to produce the key recommendations for the guidance. Issues around implementation were explored in stakeholder interviews and key facilitators were identified: funders requesting information on inclusion, having the time and funding to implement strategies, dedicated staff, flexibility in trial protocols, and considering inclusion of under-served groups at the design stages. The STEP UP guidance is freely available at http://step-up-clinical-trials.co.uk .
conclusionResearchers should consider inclusivity to shape initial trial design decisions. Trial teams and funders need to ensure that trials are given both the resources and time needed to implement the STEP UP guidance and increase the opportunities to recruit a diverse population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.