ArticleBMJ neurology open2026
Guide to developing research recruitment strategies with the experts.
Article in BMJ neurology open, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this project was to work in partnership with people living with neurological diseases, from backgrounds that are racially minoritised in the UK, to co-produce a research recruitment strategy. Their experiences living with a neurological disease were vital to the co-production, plus their deep understanding of their community, culture and factors impacting engagement. Methods: Six patient partners agreed to participate in three workshops that aimed to explore experiences of research, barriers and community concerns, culminating in ideas for strategies and actions to address the challenges. Results: Workshop 1 identified key issues around knowledge, communication, trust, shame and personal choice. Discussion and consensus in workshops 2 and 3 resulted in eight strategy areas: (1) Access to specialist clinics, (2) Setting up Patient and Public Involvement groups for specific studies or programmes, (3) Access to information on research, (4) Accessible and attractive information, (5) Incentives for participation in research, (6) Involving family members in decisions on research, (7) Communicating research outcomes and (8) Cultural sensitivity and diversity in the research team. Conclusions: The process of co-production formulated a strategy to promote engagement and increase ethnic diversity within the context of neurological disease research. Modification and refinement for other areas and contexts is recommended, in partnership with people who live with the day-to-day experiences of specific diseases.
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.