ArticleAge and ageing2026
Barriers and facilitators to recruiting older adult care home residents into clinical trials of medicines and vaccines: a scoping review.
Article in Age and ageing, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionExcluding Care Home (CH) residents from clinical trials of medicines and vaccines has led to an evidence gap. Findings from younger adults may not be generalisable to CH residents with frailty and dementia. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate pharmacological treatments directly in CH residents to assess their safety and efficacy.
methodsAs part of the Widening Access to Trials in Care Homes project, we conducted a scoping review using Joanna Briggs Institute methodology to identify barriers and facilitators to recruiting CH residents into clinical trials of medicinal products. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library (1990 to January 2025). Quantitative data on screen failures and dropouts, and qualitative data on trial teams' real-world experiences and stakeholder perspectives were extracted, synthesised into themes and presented as descriptive summaries.
resultsFrom 14,301 records, eight articles were included (2002 to 2021) from the USA (N = 4), UK (N = 3) and France (N = 1). Six were RCTs, and two were a qualitative sub-study and a questionnaire survey. Screen failure rates ranged from 18% to 96%. Identified themes of barriers and facilitators were study design, selection criteria, recruitment methods, data collection methods, participant retention, CH resident and family-related factors, CH facility and staff-related factors, healthcare professional involvement, logistical and operational factors, consent-related factors, ethical and regulatory considerations, insurance and trial costs, and generalisability of trial results.
conclusionsOur review specifically identified key barriers and facilitators to recruiting CH residents into pharmacological trials. These findings can guide trial planning and support evidence-based care for this vulnerable population.
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.