Table 1 Summary of key survey results
From: Evaluating a tool to improve engagement and recruitment of under-served groups in trials
Question n = answered within this section | Response option | % (n) |
|---|---|---|
Under-served groups that researchers identified as important for their particular trial n = 115 | Ethnic minorities | 44.3% (51) |
LGBTQ+ | 7.0% (8) | |
People with cognitive impairments | 22.6% (26) | |
Socio-economic disadvantage/low-income | 53.9% (62) | |
Male/female gender (depending on context) | 20.9% (24) | |
Age extremes (e.g. under 18 and over 75) | 40.9% (47) | |
People living in remote areas | 20.9% (24) | |
Religious minorities | 10.4% (12) | |
Other (e.g. people with physical disabilities; with complex or severe mental health needs; substance users; carers) | 26.1% (30) | |
The previous/planned involvement of members of this under-served population within the relevant trial n = 115 | Review of funding application | 40.0% (46) |
Patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives from under-served groups will be/are advisors | 76.5% (88) | |
PPI/service user researcher(s) from under-served population | 36.5% (42) | |
PPI from under-served groups to co-create intervention or other aspects of study design | 41.7% (48) | |
None | 3.5% (4) | |
Other (e.g. recruiting more participants from under-served populations into the trial) | 11.3% (13) | |
How researchers identified the under-served groups that were relevant to their trial n = 115 | Previous experience | 85.2% (98) |
Research literature | 35.7% (41) | |
Toolkit or set of guidelines (e.g. INVOLVE and PROGRESS-Plus) | 1.7% (2) | |
Other (e.g. review of the clinical epidemiology of the target illness; support groups; PPI) | 17.4% (20) | |
Approaches to increasing recruitment of under-served groups considered by trial teams n = 125 | Patient and public involvement | 81.6% (102) |
Staff training | 43.2% (54) | |
Recruiting from community organisations | 32.8% (41) | |
Cultural adaptations | 23.2% (29) | |
Use of toolkit to identify under-served groups | 8.8% (11) | |
Other (e.g. design of recruitment materials; recruiting from deprived areas) | 23.2% (29) | |
Researcher views on funders mandating recruitment and inclusion of under-served groups n = 173 | It would be difficult to have a quota for all groups | 61.8% (107) |
Having a quota is a good idea | 8.7% (15) | |
Funding would be required to increase inclusion | 45.1% (78) | |
Mandating inclusion is not relevant to all trials | 54.3% (94) | |
Other | 4.6% (8) |