SynthesisBMC health services research2026
Equity and inclusion in UK adult social care: a systematic review of trials.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 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
backgroundEquity is a key priority in UK health and social care policy, yet its integration into adult social care trials remains unclear. Without adequate inclusion or analysis of underserved populations, interventions risk reinforcing health inequalities.
aimTo examine how equity-relevant characteristics - defined by CORE20PLUS5 and PROGRESS-Plus -are reported, categorised, and analysed in UK trials of adult social care interventions.
methodsA systematic review of five databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science) was conducted for studies published between January 2015 and June 2025. Eligible studies involved UK-based adult populations (≥ 18 years) and used trial or quasi-experimental designs. Data were narratively synthesised due to heterogeneity. Study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools.
resultsFourteen studies met inclusion criteria. All reported at least one equity characteristic, but reporting was inconsistent. Ethnicity was often grouped into broad categories, limiting subgroup analysis. Few studies targeted underserved populations or designed interventions to address inequity. Reporting gaps included gender identity, sexual orientation, immigration status, and literacy.
conclusionsEquity considerations are limited in UK adult social care trials. Future research should embed equity frameworks, improve reporting detail, and conduct subgroup analyses to ensure interventions are inclusive and effective across all population groups.
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.