Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39358688›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024

Time to STEP UP: methods and findings from the development of guidance to help researchers design inclusive clinical trials.

K Biggs, K Hullock, C Dix, J A Lane, H Green, S Treweek, F Shiely, V Shepherd, A Willis, T Isaacs and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Update on the genetics of allergic diseases.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
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

11 authors.

K BiggsClinical Trials Research Unit, Division of Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. c.e.biggs@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4468-7417
K HullockClinical Trials Research Unit, Division of Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8652-1525
C DixClinical Trials Research Unit, Division of Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0009-0002-8414-5321
J A LaneBristol Medical School, Bristol Trials Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7578-4925
H GreenHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2796-6898
S TreweekHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7239-7241
F ShielyHRB Clinical Research Facility and School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-0969-8321
V ShepherdCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7687-0817
A WillisHRB Clinical Research Facility and School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-9671-2162
T IsaacsIOE, UCL's Faculty of Education and Society, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4302-3379
C CooperClinical Trials Research Unit, Division of Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2995-5447

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)
6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical Trials as TopicPatient SelectionResearch DesignResearch PersonnelGuidelines as TopicHumansIrelandUnited KingdomDiversityInclusionRandomised controlled trialsResearch designUnder-served groups

Identifiers

PMID39358688
PMCPMC11445965

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.