ArticleTrials2026
Redesigning trials to be inclusive of people with a learning disability-a practical example.
Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeople with a learning disability are frequently excluded from clinical trials, with around two thirds of trials either directly or indirectly excluding this group. This contributes to the shocking health inequalities they experience, with people with a learning disability having higher rates of long-term health conditions and dying on average 20 years younger than the general population. Improving inclusion of under-served groups in trials is a priority area for research funders and regulators. A UK-wide collaboration, 'No Research About Us, Without Us', was formed to explore and address the barriers to engaging and involving people with a learning disability in research. The project consisted of a number of intersecting work streams. This paper reports the findings from Working Group 3 which aimed to produce practical examples about how a trial could be redesigned to ensure it is more inclusive of people with a learning disability.
methodsThe redesign process consisted of three steps: (1) identifying an appropriate trial using predefined criteria, (2) selecting a tool to systematically review the trial, and (3) identifying barriers to inclusion of people with a learning disability and proposing alternative design approaches that could have widened access to the trial.
resultsFollowing review of a funder's portfolio, we selected a platform trial (PANORAMIC) which had sought to include people with a learning disability as a high-risk group for COVID-19 and yet had only made up 0.01% of those recruited. Using the INCLUDE Impaired Capacity to Consent Framework, our co-produced analysis identified practical strategies that could have ensured greater inclusion of people with a learning disability. This included involving people with a learning disability at the earliest design stage, revisiting eligibility criteria, making reasonable adjustments (e.g. high-quality easy read versions of all documents), and simplifying overly complex study processes.
conclusionTo achieve better health equity and improve the quality of clinical trials, researchers must pay greater attention to accessible study design and ensure appropriate accommodations are in place to enable inclusion of people with a learning disability. We outline some practical strategies that can inform the design and conduct of future trials to improve inclusion.
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.