Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40426258›Full record

SynthesisTrials2025

Why do patients take part in research? An updated overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators.

Peter Knapp, Peter Bower, Amber Lidster, Hugh O'Hare, Laura Ferreira Sol, Su Golder, Chris Keyworth, Adwoa Parker, Rebecca Sheridan

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

9 authors.

Peter KnappHull York Medical School and the Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. Peter.knapp@york.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5904-8699
Peter BowerCentre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Amber LidsterHull York Medical School, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Hugh O'HareSheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Laura Ferreira SolHull York Medical School, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Su GolderDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Chris KeyworthSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Adwoa ParkerDepartment of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Rebecca SheridanDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEfficient, equitable health research depends on understanding why people decide to take part. The aims of this overview were to update the version published in 2020, identifying psychosocial influences on participation and mapping them to recruitment research and psychological theory.

methodsSearches were undertaken in February 2024. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods systematic reviews were identified, without language or date limits. Methodological quality was rated using AMSTAR-2, and low-quality reviews were excluded. Barriers and facilitators were identified inductively and mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and COM-B model, and to empirical recruitment research.

resultsThe update included 70 reviews, including 44 new reviews, covering a breadth of populations and settings, and drawing on 1940 primary studies (1428 unique). We identified 15 facilitators, most commonly: altruism, potential for personal benefit and trust. Incentives and convenient, low-burden research were also facilitators. Another 10 facilitators were new to this update. There were 16 barriers, most commonly: perceived risk, practical difficulties, and distrust of researchers. Many barriers applied to specific designs, particularly randomised trials. Factors that were barriers or facilitators include the influence of others and information quality. Barriers and facilitators were coded to the Motivation and Opportunity components of the TDF, particularly knowledge and social influences; only two factors were coded to a Capability. Psychosocial influences and empirical recruitment research had some overlap, but some barriers and facilitators had not been evaluated.

conclusionsCommon barriers and facilitators to research participation were identified, some new to this update, which could be addressed through targeted recruitment strategies to increase the efficiency and generalisability of primary research. Factors affecting participation are not only personal; they are also normative and social. The priorities are to change the ways we recruit to research (perhaps tested in SWATs) and identify barriers and facilitators in areas not well covered in current research.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42017062738. Registered on April 2017.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationPatient SelectionResearch SubjectsAltruismHumansMotivationSystematic Reviews as TopicTrustBarriersConsentFacilitatorsParticipationPsychosocialRecruitmentResearchTrials

Identifiers

PMID40426258
PMCPMC12107899

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.