Enablers and barriers to engaging under-served groups in research: Survey of the United Kingdom research professional’s views

Dorothy Coe; Theophile Bigirumurame; Meera Burgess; John Rouse; Caroline Wroe

doi:10.3310/nihropenres.13434.1

Home Browse Enablers and barriers to engaging under-served groups in research:...

ALL Metrics

Views

168

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Enablers and barriers to engaging under-served groups in research: Survey of the United Kingdom research professional’s views

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]

Dorothy Coe¹, Theophile Bigirumurame², Meera Burgess³, John Rouse⁴, Caroline Wroe ¹

Dorothy Coe¹, Theophile Bigirumurame², [...] Meera Burgess³, John Rouse⁴, Caroline Wroe ¹

PUBLISHED 26 Jul 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, England, UK
² Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, UK
³ Clinical Research Network Coordinating Centre, National Institute for Health and Care Research, NIHR, UK
⁴ Clinical Research Network North East and North Cumbria, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Regent Point, Newcastle, UK

Dorothy Coe
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Theophile Bigirumurame
Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Meera Burgess
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

John Rouse
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Caroline Wroe
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background
There is a known lack of diversity in research subject populations. This impacts on the generalisability of findings and effects clinician prescribing. In the United Kingdom those who are underrepresented are thought of as under-served by the research community. They are commonly those affected by health inequality and disparity. Works illustrate the complexity of the issue covering demographic, social, economic and illness factors which contribute to being under-served and strategies to improve engagement. The survey aim was to explore the views of research professionals in the UK.
Methods
Research professionals were invited to complete an online survey. The findings were analysed using statistical and qualitative methods to identify the enablers and barriers to engagement of under-served groups in research. Descriptive statistics were utilised with associations compared univariately using chi-square test and logistic regression for multivariable analysis.
Results
A total of 945 completed responses were received. Those identified as under-served agrees with the previous literature with a broader descriptor of ethnic and cultural minorities and the addition of adolescents and young adults. Language and literacy skills have the most impact on being under-served. Only 13% of respondents said they felt equipped to meet the needs of the under-served. The main strategy to increase diversity was community engagement and the movement of research delivery into the community. The largest barriers were funding and time. Training needs identified were linked to community engagement, cultural competence and consent processes.
Conclusions
The UK findings reflect the previous USA literature. Adolescents and young people are added to the groups identified as under-served. Enablers included community outreach and improvement to communication. Barriers were time, funding, organisational processes and lack of focus. Issues were identified with translation and interpretation services. Training requirements focus on methodologies and methods to engage and the consent of those from under-served groups.

Plain Language Summary

Research study participants do not reflect the general population. This means that findings from research cannot be reliably transferred to parts of the general population. The people missing are termed under-served or underrepresented. They come from groups who have unequal access to health care and have poorer health. There are different reasons why people may not take part in research and many ways to get more of them to take part.
This project asked the people who work in research who they thought were missing from research studies. It asked, what would make it easier for people to take part and what got in the way. They were invited to write their thoughts in a questionnaire found on the internet. Answers were then looked at using tests to find out the number of people who said the same or different things. Other answers were looked at to find out their views and opinions.
A total of 945 people filled in the questionnaire. They thought the biggest group of people who were missing from research populations were from minority social and cultural groups. They thought teenagers and young adults were missing from research. When asked why people didn’t take part the biggest problem was with making research easy to understand. Only 13 out of every 100 people who filled in the survey thought they were able to help those who were missing. It was suggested the best way to improve the number of different people taking part in research was to carry out as much research as possible in the community. The biggest thing that stopped those working in research helping was funding and time. They wanted to find out how to move research into the community, how to help different cultural groups and aid those with certain medical conditions.

Keywords

Research inclusion, research participation, under-served, underrepresented, enablers, barriers.

Corresponding author: Caroline Wroe

Competing interests: DC, MB, JR, and CW all work in some capacity for NIHR.

Grant information: This work was commissioned by NIHR and funded by NIHR CRN as part of the NIHR infrastructure.

Copyright: © 2023 Coe D et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Coe D, Bigirumurame T, Burgess M et al. Enablers and barriers to engaging under-served groups in research: Survey of the United Kingdom research professional’s views [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res 2023, 3:37 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13434.1) First published: 26 Jul 2023, 3:37 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13434.1) Latest published: 18 Dec 2023, 3:37 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13434.2)

Plain language summary

This project asked the people who work in research who they thought were missing from research studies. It asked, what would make it easier for people to take part and what got in the way. They were invited to write their thoughts in a questionnaire found on the internet. Answers were then looked at using tests to find out the number of people who said the same or different things. Other answers were looked at to find out their views and opinions.

A total of 945 people filled in the questionnaire. They thought the biggest group of people who were missing from research populations were from minority social and cultural groups. They thought teenagers and young adults were missing from research. When asked why people didn’t take part the biggest problem was with making research easy to understand. Only 13 out of every 100 people who filled in the survey thought they were able to help those who were missing. It was suggested the best way to improve the number of different people taking part in research was to carry out as much research as possible in the community. The biggest thing that stopped those working in research helping was funding and time. They wanted to find out how to move research into the community, how to help different cultural groups and aid those with certain medical conditions.

Introduction

There is a lack of diversity in the participants of research studies. In the United Kingdom (UK) the groups thought of as underrepresented are termed under-served. The definition being: ‘A group that is less well represented in research than would be desirable from population prevalence and healthcare burden’¹. Commonly these groups are disproportionally affected by ill health, live in poverty and have associated health inequality and health disparity^2,3. Their lack of representation reduces the validity and reliability of research findings and inhibits generalisability⁴. This results in interventions and treatments being approved with limited evidence for their use in the under-served populations^5,6. The lack of evidence affects the willingness of clinicians to prescribe, limiting treatment options and continuing the cycle of health disparity and inequality⁷.

In recent years there has been a move to improve the representation of under-served groups in research. There is a large body of work, mainly from the United States of America, where the preferred term is ‘underrepresented’. In the UK the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) funds, enables and delivers research; it has funded and completed two major projects aimed at engaging potential research participants^7,8. NIHR INCLUDE⁷ specifically focused on those who may be under-served, involving them directly in producing the definition above. Prior to this there was no formal definition of what constituted an under-served or underrepresented group, the terms being context specific and used interchangeably. Very recently the all-party parliamentary group on medical research published a report on health disparities and why medical research is a crucial tool for change⁹. This report included a section on recruiting a more diverse range of participants to clinical research.

Illustrating the multifaceted complex and interrelated nature of the concept, the previous works link the terms to one or more of the following: a demographic identifier such as age^5,10 or ethnicity^11,12, a specific disease such as cancer^13,14, or a strategy aimed at engagement^15,16. Many narrow the focus to engagement within a named group and a specific disease^17,18 and others narrow further to named group, named disease and named engagement intervention^19,20. Engagement strategies fall into five main areas: changes to research methods and methodologies^21–23, organisational initiatives^7,24,25, use of technology^19,26, enhancing trust^27,28 and finally changes to reporting and publication^29,30.

This article forms part of the output from a cross-UK NIHR programme board with specific emphasis on engaging under-served communities in research. It reports on a survey which explored the views of research professionals. The survey covered: who they felt were the under-served, what factors led to being under-served, what changes promoted inclusivity, what barriers exist and what additional training and resources were required to aid engagement activity.

Methods

Patient and Public Involvement

There was no patient or public involvement in this project as it was aimed at professionals working in research.

Ethics and consent

The NIHR under-served programme board agreed that ethical approval was not required for this research, as the survey was deemed service improvement. Participants’ consent was presumed by the active choice of clicking the link to the survey and completing the questions. Responses were anonymous. The survey data were stored on password protected devices and only accessed by the research team. Free text comments were reviewed prior to analysis and any identifying information removed or coded.

Survey development

An online survey was designed and delivered in smartsurvey.co.uk³¹. It was produced following a focussed review of the literature. The review was completed between July and September 2021 using the terms ‘under-served’ and ‘underrepresented’. PubMed database was utilised, and the search was limited to articles produced between 2018 and 2021, where full-text or abstracts were available. All article types were included and the biographies of each reviewed. A total of 62 articles were identified and reviewed for relevance. After the initial assessment, 47 articles formed the focussed review.

The subsequent survey was piloted and peer reviewed by six members of the NIHR under-served programme board. Feedback from peers was discussed and acted upon and there was one further round of revisions. A copy of the survey is available³².

Recruitment and data collection

The survey was advertised through an NIHR communications package. It was circulated to all local clinical research network communications leads and partner organisations with a request to share. It was promoted via regional NIHR newsletters and the Clinical Research Network national newsletter. Further promotion appeared on Twitter and LinkedIn. As an example, in the North East and North Cumbria CRN, the request to share was actioned by the communication lead. This led to the direct emailing of research and development managers, speciality groups leads and core team delivery staff which totalled 89 direct emails. The recruitment aim was to reach those working in the public sector of the UK who were involved in research delivery. There was no defined target sample and there were no specific exclusions.

The survey commenced with an introductory statement and link to the NIHR INCLUDE project. It was split into four sections totalling 19 questions. The first section of nine questions collected demographic and role information. This was followed by one question regarding specialism. The next seven questions were titled ‘Barriers and enablers’ and gathered information on who are the under-served, factors impacting on being under-served and strategies to improve research activity to better engage the under-served. The final two questions allowed respondents to indicate if they wanted to make direct contact with research team and leave their contact details. Question types included closed, open, ranking and four free text response questions. Only complete data for each section was analysed.

Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using R software³³. Descriptive statistics were utilised with associations compared using chi-square test. To test relationships between categorical variables statistical significance was deemed as p. value of <0.05. Qualitative analysis of the free text responses was completed using a thematic approach³⁴. The analysis followed three steps. Initially the free-text comments were read to familiarise and anonymise. The comments were then coded and descriptive themes generated. The themes were guided by the findings from the focussed literature review. Finally, the descriptive themes were reviewed to generate an overall viewpoint.^34,35. Analysis was aided by Microsoft Excel, topic models³⁶ and tidytext³⁷ packages.

Reflexivity

The process was verified for trustworthiness by the core team. Reflexivity was demonstrated by acknowledging the prior views and knowledge of the research team. Themes were guided by the previous literature, however differing views and information were explicitly sought out. Data were coded by different individuals and data analysis clinics held to reflect on codes and discuss initial theorising³⁴.

The authors have experience of survey research (DC, CW, JR), statistical (TB) and qualitative analysis (DC). CW was responsible for the original idea, CW, JR and DC formulated the questions and JR built the survey. MSB has expertise in equality and diversity and aided the qualitative analysis with DC. The study is reported in line with CROSS³⁸ (Checklist for Reporting Survey Studies), STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies: cross -sectional studies)³⁹ and SRQR (Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research)⁴⁰ guidelines.

Results

Demographics

Data was collected from 945 respondents who confirmed they were happy to complete the survey³². Responses were received from all geographical areas of the UK. The largest number came from the North East and North Cumbria (n=111, 12.4%). The age, sex and ethnicity profiles reflect that of the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) with 72% (n=660) identifying as female, 82% (n= 748) white and over 30% (n=275) in the 45–54 years age group⁴¹. Respondents self-identified their sex, the options being male, female, prefer not to say and other (please specify). All components of the NIHR infrastructure and Clinical Specialties in the NHS were represented. To identify any differences in enablers and barriers across clinical settings, sub-set analysis via specialism was completed. These were: hospital-based specialties (n=323, female 222, male 91), mental health (n=124, female 82, male 38), and primary care (n=118, female 90, male 24), including public health and community. These three sub-sets total 60% (n=565) of the total responses.

Place of work and role

The commonest area worked in was secondary care (41%, n= 371, female 259, male 102), followed by research higher education institutions (39%, n=355, female 242, male 97). The least cited place of work was the ambulance service (0.3%, n=3). When asked, 75% (n=587, female 290, male 153) of those who responded stated they were involved in identifying participants for research studies, with 69% (n=624, female 442, male 164) saying they had direct contact with research participants and finally 54% (n=491, female 353, male 128) declared they were involved in consenting participants for research studies.

Who are the under-served?

The respondents were asked to identify who they felt were under-served in their area. They were given five open text boxes to insert a descriptor. They were not asked to rank the five descriptors. In total 2782 responses were made across the five open text boxes. The responses were collapsed into categories. Table 1 illustrates the top seven categories and the total responses for each. These findings broadly reflect the previous literature. The most cited group was ethnic and cultural minorities, followed by those deemed as having a lower socioeconomic status, then those where a given age was used as an identifier. In the category where age was used as an identifier, ‘adolescents/young adults’ were put forward as a group not previously identified. The ethnic and cultural minority group contained a broader descriptor than found in the literature which focussed on Black and Hispanic groups.

Table 1. Who are the under-served in your area?

The respondents were asked to identify who they felt were under-served in their area. Table one illustrates the top seven categories and the total responses for each. These findings broadly reflect the previous literature. Subset analysis by specialism reveals that the hospital-based group placed ‘condition specific’ (9%, n=76) above ‘mental health’ (6%, n=52), with those specialising in mental health putting ‘mental health’ in second place (18%, n=79) followed by ‘lower socioeconomic status’ (14%, n=62) ‘learning/intellectual difficulty/disability’ (11%, n=48) and age related at 8% (n=36).

Description	Total number across the five open text boxes.	% of total responses (n=2782)	% in hospital- based specialism (n=887)	% in mental health specialism (n=450)	% in primary care specialism (n=415)
Ethnic and cultural minorities.	862	31%	34% (n=305)	26% (n=119)	33% (n=136)
Lower socioeconomic status	514	18%	17% (n=151)	14% (n=62)	22% (n=93)
Age related. (Older, younger, adolescent)	304	11%	10% (n=92)	8% (n=36)	10% (n=42)
Mental health, dementia and neurodegenerative diseases	213	8%	6% (n=52)	18% (n=79)	7% (n=30)
Condition specific (excluding mental health, dementia and neurodegenerative diseases)	143	5%	9% (n=76)	2% (n=10)	3% (n=11)
Learning/intellectual difficulty/ disability (including ADHD and autism)	131	5%	4% (n=33)	11% (n=48)	3% (n=13)
Access (rurality, workers, limited mobility, car-less) excludes digital access.	139	5%	4% (n=39)	4% (n=19)	6% (n=24)

Subset analysis by specialism reveals that the hospital-based group placed ‘condition specific’ (9%, n=76) above ‘mental health’ (6%, n=52), with those specialising in mental health putting ‘mental health’ in second place (18%, n=79) followed by ‘lower socioeconomic status’ (14%, n=62) ‘learning/intellectual difficulty/disability’ (11%, n=48) and age related at 8% (n=36). The primary care-based specialisms elevated ‘access’ above ‘condition specific’ (p=0.038).

What impacts on being under-served?

Respondents ranked 10 factors taken from the literature, in terms of how they impacted on being under-served. They ranked language and literacy skills as the most impactful, with the least impactful being religious and cultural beliefs. Figure 1 illustrates the ranking of factors.

Figure 1. Ranking of 10 factors on degree of impact on being under-served.

Sub-set analysis via specialism indicated statistically significant variation in greatest impact. Hospital-based specialisms (32%) and primary care specialists (30%) ranked language and literacy skills as the most impactful when compared to mental health 11% (p<0.0001). Mental health services ranked a lack of focus on the under-served as more significant: mental health 22%, primary care 15% and hospital-based 12% (p=0.04). In addition, significant differences were demonstrated for socioeconomic status, with this being ranked as a more significant factor in primary care research: primary care 22%, mental health 11% and hospital-based 10% (p=0.004).

Addressing the needs of the under-served

A total of 824 (610 female, 214 male) responses were received from those who answered question 8 (Are you involved in identifying research participants? Yes/No) and question 15 (How equipped do you feel in dealing with the under-served? Yes/Partially/Not very well/No). Of the 538 (392 female, 146 male) who stated they were involved in identifying research participants, 12.3% (n=66, 44 female, 21 male) suggested they felt equipped to meet the needs of the under-served, with a further 48% stating they were partially equipped (n=258, 179 female, 79 male). Of those not involved directly in identifying research participants (n=286, 218 female, 68 male), 8% (n=22, 18 female, 4 male) said they felt equipped to meet the needs of the under-served (p=0.06). A significant difference is also seen in those who identify research participants who felt partially equipped (n=258, 179 female, 79 male) when compared to those who do not identify research participants (38%, n=108, 81 females and 27 males), p=0.006. As expected, those who identify potential research participants in their role felt more equipped compared to those who do not (p=0.0004), similarly staff taking consent from research participants felt more equipped than researchers who do not (p=0.0001). Those who consent research participants were more likely to feel partially equipped to address the needs of the under-served compared to those who do not consent (p=0.013), suggesting that face to face contact improves confidence in engaging the under-served.

Qualitative analysis

Four free-text questions were analysed using a thematic approach. They covered positive innovations, barriers to innovations, challenges to engagement and further training requirements. From these responses enablers and barriers were identified and suggestions for training put forward.

Enablers

Several enablers were recognised with comments suggesting strategies to enhance engagement. However, these were often accompanied by the barriers indicating why they could not be implemented. The most cited enabler was community outreach.

Community based research - while not revolutionary - has proved to be highly effective when wanting to involve underserved groups.
Going into the community they live in, engaging at a time most convenient for communities (i.e. in day time in between school hours for young mothers) and in the mid-week evenings at 06:30pm/07:00pm start to allow those who may be working, holding quarterly/6-monthly events on Saturdays (whole day) with necessary support to do out-reach activities such that information can be shared and participations encouraged.
We are never sufficiently funded to do anything innovative. Funding only covers the most basic and efficient of recruitment (e.g., GP search and mailout) and despite our best efforts to make study documents appropriate, engaging and accessible they do not attract groups that we know are underserved.

Community engagement was seen as beginning prior to any notion of conducting research. It included genuine participation by the community in setting its own research agenda via collaborative approaches and continued after the completion of any research project.

Genuine engagement - not "involvement" - leading to genuine co-creation of work that meets the needs of the community partners *as much* as it meets the needs of the researchers.

Linking to this was the use of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) groups. These groups were highlighted as enabling, however there was a degree of scepticism about how representative they are of their group.

Appropriate PPI (i.e. finding the right people to be involved in PPI not just some well-educated, often white person from a professional/semi-professional background). Research organisations should start thinking about recruiting community champions from under-served populations / communities. These should be influential people who can be able to help with ensuring participation of under-served populations. Use of community champions has been an effective approach by community-based organisations (CBO). So where research organisations are not able to directly recruit community champions, development of research partnerships with CBOs can be a very good way forward.

Outreach also included the movement of research from a secondary care setting to the community. It was suggested methods and methodologies should focus on assisting the delivery of research in the community.

Community Ageing Research 75+ cohort study - a national ageing research cohort study funded by (organisation). (They) use an opt-out approach to consent and have researchers who are proficient in community language skills. The opt-out approach supports engagement with older people with frailty, some of whom who find it problematic to actively respond to an invitation to participate in research as they may have mobility problems making it problematic (or simply burdensome) to provide a postal response using an opt-in approach. The approach also supports recruitment of people from minority ethnic groups, some of who speak dialects that do not have a written form, so require a proactive telephone call to discuss participation. Taking this approach, (they) have a recruitment rate of around 40% at all our sites, and 5% of study participants are from the south Asian community (15% in Bradford - consistent with the local demographic).
Need very intensive methods to recruit and then retain under served groups, e.g. provide transport, pay for travel, take research to the community.

Further enablers were identified such as strategies to improve the accessibility of study documentation and the information presented in them. Suggestions were put forward covering multiple different modalities: translation and interpretation services, video, audio, digital platforms, social media, sign language and braille. Again, these suggestions were accompanied by the barriers to implementation.

Using culturally relevant short drama/films to aid raising awareness in communities that do not typically engage with research. Having these in multiple languages to aids those who are not literate in their native language - this is expensive and typically the sector relies on family member to translate but this does not necessarily meet recommended guidelines for consent.
We have asked study teams if they can translate consent forms, information sheets, questionnaires etc. into different languages so that we include non-English speaking participants, however, all study teams have said they did not have enough money/funding to be able to do this and/or to cover the cost of any translators.

Additional enablers to engaging a diverse research population were having a workforce that reflects a varied background and where possible the demographic profile of the under-served group. Recruitment via General Practice was thought to better reflect the demographic profile of the area and innovative ways to reimburse participants was also thought to enable engagement.

More active engagement with community groups within diverse communities to support recruitment, developed study materials in formats more accessible to people from diverse communities and with low literacy levels. Trained and paid individuals from diverse communities to support recruitment to studies and as co-researchers - for example who speak the language or who are known to people in the community. Anything extra that involves more resource as this often isn't possible in the tight funding windows.
The benefits systems mean we can’t pay those who we most want to get involved or they are sanctioned. Funders and senior academics want involvement from all but it needs time, commitment, planning- can’t be overnight.

At an organisational level it was suggested that study design and approvals processes should reflect those of the urgent public health studies carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic. Highlighted were changes in ethical approval, community engagement, consent processes, data collection methods and feedback of results.

Covid has forced one of our studies to move from face to face follow up to remote follow up. This has lead to a higher recruitment rate as potential recruits are more willing to conduct the follow up at home or in their own time than physically attend a follow up appointment. This has improved accessibility.
Remote data collection (especially promoted by COVID requirements) improves access for some - but need a range of options to be really inclusive.
Electronic consent, (if appropriate). This speeds up the consent process and allows the patient to complete the consent at their own pace at home. This is particularly effective now many clinics are conducted remotely, so paper consenting is not possible.
In Covid research we used a lot of consultee consents for patients who were acutely unwell and we also had lots of ethnically diverse patients inpatients so our recruitment was much more diverse.

Sub-set analysis indicated the most cited enabler from both primary care-based and mental health groups was community outreach, with hospital-based specialties citing changes to research design and methodology.

Barriers

The most cited barrier to engaging under-served groups was time and funding; this was reflected across the whole dataset and the sub-sets of primary care and mental health specialties. The respondents were aware of the strategies to enhance engagement; however, these all required more time and funding, and that time and funding was not planned into project designs. They felt that the current systems and processes around grants/funding applications and ethical approval were obstructive and risk averse. Funding processes did not consider the planning needed to design studies that are co-produced with communities and approvals processes question innovative recruitment strategies and reimbursement of participants. Comments suggest a disconnect between policy and practical application.

Time - it takes significantly longer to take someone whose first language is not English through a study.
The whole ethics process is not set up for considering the needs of this population.
Need NIHR to ensure there is funding to support this and to understand that there is a substantial time and resource commitment to undertaking research that addresses under-served populations.
We are required to develop patient information sheets that go against the advice of our patients and basically, we know that they aren't read but we churn them out because we don't get approval otherwise. If you have a non-English speak/illiterate person and they are faced with some of the approved documentation, it’s no wonder they won't even talk to you…. There is no point in trying to be even slightly inventive because you just know the REC (Research Ethics Committee) is going to be a barrier to you actually being able to use it.

Barriers also included issues with communicating research to specific groups who may be under-served. Respondents highlighted problems with translation and interpretation services and how useful they are in the field of research.

Across multiple studies, we have been limited in the number of non-English speakers that we have recruited due to a lack of access to translators. The issues we have faced around translation is a lack of availability of translators and a lack of funding for translation services.
Another issue is being dependent on a translator communicating in the way you want them to - I had experience of a situation where the translator deemed that catheterisation of a little girl meant she was no longer a virgin.
Paying for actual translators not having to rely on family (which can often mis-translate, negate details, or might prevent sensitive topics being explored).

Their concerns were around availability when required, knowledge levels and personal views of the translator or interpreter. Cost of translating written materials and the time taken were also thought to be obstructive. These were the most cited barriers in the hospital-based specialism. There were also comments which suggested that while the use of digital platforms may for some enhance engagement, it conversely disenfranchises some others.

Further information and training

Suggestions about additional information and training to aid researchers were diffuse. They included ways to conduct community engagement including methodologies, methods, inclusive recruitment strategies, for both participants and PPIE, funding applications and innovative reimbursement methods. Further general training was requested in cultural competence, taking in cultural awareness and sensitivity and general equality and diversity. Some specific under-served groups that were mentioned regarding engagement activities were the LGBTQi community, those with disability and the homeless. Finally, requests were made for training in consenting those where English is not their first language or their comprehension of English may be reduced, and those who may lack capacity.

Cultural awareness training. I feel this would be helpful to me with regard to those of Pakistani and Roma ethnicity, and for the Deaf Community. Advice regarding how to identify and link up with local community groups, to find PPI contributors from underserved populations. Training in inclusive research study design, sharing best-practice and learning from the successes of other researchers.
Be trained in how to speak to those and consent those who have dementia or other mental problems in their older years…How to work with those whose English isn’t their first language.
How best to engage with such communities, build their respect and interest and to understand value of research.

In summary, the findings from the survey generally reflect the literature in this area. Those working in the field of research feel only partially equipped to deal with engaging the under-served and request additional information, support and training. The responses overall are context specific and focussed around the respondent’s area of speciality. The main enabler to engaging the under-served is thought to be community outreach. However, there is a consistent reference to lack of time, funding, capacity and support to develop site and project level interventions to engage the under-served. Respondents were aware of numerous strategies to improve the diversity of research participants and there was a sense of divide between policy rhetoric and ability to practically apply.

Discussion

The findings from the survey come from across the UK, with substantial representation from areas of known deprivation and rurality, both factors associated with being under-served^2,42. This may reflect an increased awareness and engagement in these areas and indicate strategies are already being utilised to enhance representation.

The groups identified as being under-served reflect the literature and the previous NIHR work^7,8. Whilst the literature from the USA focusses on Black and Hispanic communities as minority ethnic and cultural groups^6,43 the UK findings suggest a wider descriptor including non-white, non-native English speakers, migrants, refugees, Roma and traveller communities. These groups plus those termed Black Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) were the largest group deemed under-served. Of note is that during the timespan of the survey the UK government recommended a move away from using BAME as a descriptor of ethnic minority groups⁴⁴. The second largest group identified as under-served were those who live in low socio-economic circumstances, including those who were digitally excluded, live in geographical areas known to have high levels of deprivation and those who are unemployed. This group was followed by those with an age descriptor attributed to them, the old, very old, young adults, adolescents, children and neonates. There is limited previous literature to suggest young adults or adolescents are under-served by the research community. This group was identified across numerous research specialities and is a finding worthy of further understanding.

In terms of why groups may be under-served, the impact of factors appeared to be cumulative in nature. Descriptors often cited more than one identifier, for instance an older person living in a care home, or a migrant living in a rural area. Therefore, the possibility of being under-served was increased as descriptors or impactful factors were attributed to a group. This and the differing order of who is felt to be under-served by each speciality group aptly demonstrate the context specific nature of the ‘under-served’ and the influence of workplace and specialism. When asked to rank the factors that contribute to being under-served, language and literacy skills were thought of as the most impactful. Whilst it was felt ethnic and cultural minority groups were the largest groups under-served, it appears the communication to groups is the most impactful. This ties into the barriers where the participant information sheet, which is required by all approved research studies, was seen as a barrier to inclusivity. It is suggested that the level of English comprehension required to understand research is an issue when trying to engage the under-served. This then links strongly to the suggestion than improvements are needed in communication and information accessibility. These include interpretation and translation, plus information being accessible across multiple different platforms and modalities. Examples were cited from the urgent public health work carried out through COVID-19, where PPIE and community engagement had been very successful^45,46. This work was highlighted as community outreach in action and worthy of further study to explore application and impact.

While interpretation and translation were suggested as strategies to increase the diversity of research populations, there were also several issues with this approach, particularly from the hospital-based perspective. These issues were centred on availability of translated study documentation, of individual translators and interpreters when required, their understanding of research and the cultural norms and impartiality of the interpreters. Some of these have previously been reported^47–49 however, there is limited empirical work in this area with central guidance covering the general health setting only⁵⁰. Translation of written study documentation is put forward as an inclusion strategy², however there is little information about how often this service is utilised and if it has a positive impact. Conversely it is known anecdotally that research sponsored by academic institutions often cites lack of funding as a barrier to translation. The areas of translation and interpretation are worthy of further investigation into the use of, and levels of satisfaction in these services, from both research professionals and participants perspectives. This may lead to a stronger rationale for their use or suggestions for different approaches.

The strongest enabler was community outreach. Recommendations are made to explore focussing research delivery outside of secondary care. It is known that engaging communities in identifying their own needs and requirements has many positive benefits⁵¹. There are innovative strategies that allow interventional studies to be conducted wholly or partially in the community where the under-served are^22,43. General practices are seen as providing access to local communities who reflect the demographic profile of the area and are more representative. Community outreach also gives opportunities for health researchers to work in partnership with local government and non-governmental organisations and the potential for ‘researchers’ to better reflect the local demographic. However, this requires time, funding and planning, needing to be resourced and supported from the outset.

It is discouraging that many of the specific requests for training, such as consent where capacity may be an issue, are already free and available across the health research sphere⁵². This implies more effort is needed to advertise and signpost what training is available. Respondents may simply not have time to search for training, guidelines or toolkits, or it may be that these need to be more specific to a group, illness or setting. Added to this are the low levels of confidence expressed by respondents in their ability to address the needs of the under-served and the call for more information and training on improving the accessibility of study materials, methodologies to promote inclusivity and sharing of best practice. All these areas have previously been put forward to improve representativeness⁷ and were known and highlighted by the respondents of the survey. It is also disappointing, when considering the previous works, that there is still a lack of focus on the under-served, implying more is required from an organisational perspective. This was particularly noted in those working in mental health and may require further investigation.

The qualitative work suggests that those working in the field of research are aware of the issues surrounding under-served populations. However, there is a sense of exasperation that systems and processes thwart ideas and strategies to increase representation. Highlighted are the processes of grant and funding applications and the ethical review process. These barriers link back to the lack of time and funding to plan research projects, which are specially designed to increase representation. Many state that work in this area takes considerably longer.

The limitations of this work are primarily around the make-up of the respondents. While this work engaged public sector researchers in the UK working with or in the NHS, it does not include the views of large multinational pharmaceutical organisations or private research delivery and monitoring companies. These private sector organisations could be significant in addressing the diversity of research populations. A further limitation is the current climate in the NHS post COVID-19. There was a significant amount of upheaval in the NHS during the pandemic and research activity, outside that of urgent public health, was negatively impacted. That effect is still being felt, with the Department of Health and Social Care setting up a program of work to increase study numbers to pre-pandemic levels under the banner of the Research Reset programme⁵³. The current funding climate and the push to increase the number of studies being carried out means that those working in the field are under significant pressures.

This work suggests that there needs to be a drive from a strategic level to put at the forefront of research the funding and support to engage the under-served. There is room for mandatory targets in recruitment, improved reporting of study populations and strategies utilised to engage those who are under-served in the current research paradigm.

Conclusion

Lack of inclusivity in research creates problems with the generalisability of findings adding to health disparity and inequality. This survey explored the views of research professionals working in the UK. The UK findings largely concur with those of the USA literature in terms of who are the thought to be the under-served and what factors impact on them being under-served. However, these findings suggest a wider description of minority ethnic and cultural findings in the UK and the inclusion of adolescents and young people as an under-served group. While the concept remains context specific, the barriers to inclusivity included both systemic and local factors. Recommendations are made to engage the under-served prior to the research process, to conduct where possible research in the community and to supply and disseminate information across multiple modalities. Support for researchers to address these recommendations is required in terms of time and funding. A further recommendation is made to explore the use of translation and interpretation in the field of research. There also needs to be a concerted move to address the barriers and support the enablers at an organisational level with additional funding, review of grant application processes, ethical approval and training availability. This work has built on the previous works commissioned by NIHR in the UK. It has drawn out the enablers and barriers to improving inclusivity and made recommendations to further address underrepresentation.

Data availability

Underlying data

Discussions have taken place with the Editors of the NIHR Open Research platform. Due to there being small numbers of respondents in some geographical and/or specialist areas, the open data has been limited to the pseudonymised responses from which the enablers and barriers were drawn (see below). This data has been disaggregated from the demographic data to ensure anonymity of respondents. Full anonymised data are available on request to the corresponding author (Caroline.wroe@nhs.net). Applicants must provide a sound rationale for the use of the data and confirm their commitment to confidentiality.

Open Science Framework: Enablers and barriers to engaging under-served groups in research: Survey of the United Kingdom research professional’s views. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/F5KNW³²

This project contains the following underlying data:

- Barriers and Enablers raw data.xlsx (Pseudonymised responses from the enablers and barriers section of the questionnaire).

Extended data

Open Science Framework: Enablers and barriers to engaging under-served groups in research: Survey of the United Kingdom research professional’s views. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/F5KNW³²

This project contains the following extended data:

- Copy of the survey.pdf

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Reporting guidelines

Open Science Framework Repository: CROSS checklist for ‘Enablers and barriers to engaging under-served groups in research: Survey of the United Kingdom research professional’s views. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/F5KNW

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. NIHR: Under-served communities. 2023; (accessed 31 Jan 2023). Reference Source
2. Davis TC, Arnold CL, Mills G, et al.: A Qualitative Study Exploring Barriers and Facilitators of Enrolling Underrepresented Populations in Clinical Trials and Biobanking. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2019; 7: 74. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
3. Clark LT, Watkins L, Piña IL, et al.: Increasing Diversity in Clinical Trials: Overcoming Critical Barriers. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2019; 44(5): 148–172. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Huang B, De Vore D, Chirinos C, et al.: Strategies for recruitment and retention of underrepresented populations with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for a clinical trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19(1): 39. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. Sedrak MS, Freedman RA, Cohen HJ, et al.: Older adult participation in cancer clinical trials: A systematic review of barriers and interventions. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021; 71(1): 78–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
6. Borno HT, Zhang S, Gomez S: COVID-19 disparities: An urgent call for race reporting and representation in clinical research. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2020; 19: 100630. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
7. INCLUDE: INCLUDE Better healthcare through more inclusive research. n.d. Reference Source
8. NIHR INVOLVE: NIHR INVOLVE. 2019; (accessed 20 Aug 2019). Reference Source
9. All party parlimentary group on medical research: Health Disparities: Why Medical Reserach is a Crucial Tool for Change. 2023; (accessed 4 May 2023). Reference Source
10. Liu J, Gutierrez E, Tiwari A, et al.: Strategies to Improve Participation of Older Adults in Cancer Research. J Clin Med. 2020; 9(5): 1571. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
11. Farooqi A, Raghavan R, Wilson A, et al.: Toolkit for: Increasing participation of Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups in health and socail care research. NIHR Applied Research Collaboration North East and North Cumbria Resources. 2018; (accessed 31 Aug 2021). Reference Source
12. Prasanna A, Miller HN, Wu Y, et al.: Recruitment of Black Adults into Cardiovascular Disease Trials. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021; 10(17): e021108. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
13. Vuong I, Wright J, Nolan MB, et al.: Overcoming Barriers: Evidence-Based Strategies to Increase Enrollment of Underrepresented Populations in Cancer Therapeutic Clinical Trials—a Narrative Review. J Canc Educ. 2020; 35(5): 841–849. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Nipp RD, Hong K, Paskett ED: Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrollment. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2019; 39: 105–114. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Willis A, Isaacs T, Khunti K: Improving diversity in research and trial participation: the challenges of language. Lancet Public Health. 2021; 6(7): e445–e446. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. Dobkin RD, Amondikar N, Kopil C, et al.: Innovative Recruitment Strategies to Increase Diversity of Participation in Parkinson’s Disease Research: The Fox Insight Cohort Experience. J Parkinsons Dis. 2020; 10(2): 665–675. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
17. Stedman A, Taylor B, Erard M, et al.: Are Children Severely Affected by Autism Spectrum Disorder Underrepresented in Treatment Studies? An Analysis of the Literature. J Autism Dev Disord. 2019; 49(4): 1378–1390. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
18. Drenkard C, Easley K, Bao G, et al.: Overcoming barriers to recruitment and retention of African-American women with SLE in behavioural interventions: lessons learnt from the WELL study. Lupus Sci Med. 2020; 7(1): e000391. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
19. Pratap A, Renn BN, Volponi J, et al.: Using Mobile Apps to Assess and Treat Depression in Hispanic and Latino Populations: Fully Remote Randomized Clinical Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2018; 20(8): e10130. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
20. Nemanich S, Gillick BT, Sukal-Moulton T, et al.: Can Technology Improve Participation From Underserved Children and Families In Rehabilitation Research? WMJ. 2022; 121(3): 174–176. PubMed Abstract
21. Kraft SA, Doerr M: Engaging populations underrepresented in research through novel approaches to consent. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2018; 178(1): 75–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
22. Harrington C, Erete S, Piper AM: Deconstructing Community-Based Collaborative Design: Towards More Equitable Participatory Design Engagements. Proc ACM Hum-Comput Interact. 2019; 3: 1–25. Publisher Full Text
23. Hoyo V, Shah RC, Dave G, et al.: Integrating special and underserved populations in translational research: Environmental scan of adaptive capacity and preparedness of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program hubs. J Clin Transl Sci. 2022; 6(1): e89. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
24. Care Quality Comission: A new strategy for changing the world of health and social care - CQC’s strategy from 2021. About us. 2022; (accessed 2 Feb 2023). Reference Source
25. DeCaro R, O’Connor MK, DiTerlizzi C, et al.: Educating students while recruiting underrepresented populations for Alzheimer’s disease research: the Student Ambassador Program. BMC Med Educ. 2022; 22(1): 707. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
26. Lunn MR, Capriotti MR, Flentje A, et al.: Using mobile technology to engage sexual and gender minorities in clinical research. PLoS One. 2019; 14(5): e0216282. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
27. Bardach SH, Yarbrough M, Walker C, et al.: Insights From African American Older Adults on Brain Health Research Engagement: “Need to See the Need”. J Appl Gerontol. 2021; 40(2): 201–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
28. Amorrortu RP, Arevalo M, Vernon SW, et al.: Recruitment of racial and ethnic minorities to clinical trials conducted within specialty clinics: an intervention mapping approach. Trials. 2018; 19(1): 115. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
29. Shepherd V, Wood F, Griffith R, et al.: Protection by exclusion? The (lack of) inclusion of adults who lack capacity to consent to research in clinical trials in the UK. Trials. 2019; 20(1): 474. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
30. Chastian DB, Osae SP, Henao-Martínez AF, et al.: Racial Disproportionality in Covid Clinical Trials. N Engl J Med. 2020; 383(9): e59. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
31. SmartSurvey. 2022; (accessed 2 Sep 2023). Reference Source
32. Coe D, Bigirumurame T, Burgess M, et al.: Enablers and barriers to engaging under-served groups in research: Survey of the United Kingdom research professional’s views. [Dataset], 2023. http://www.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/F5KNW
33. The R Foundation: The R Project for Staatistical Computing. r-project.org. 2022; (accessed 3 Jul 2023). Reference Source
34. Creswell J: Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design choosing Among Five Approaches. 2nd ed. London:: Sage, 2007. Reference Source
35. Graneheim UH, Lindgren BM, Lundman B: Methodological Challenges in Qualitative Content Analysis: A discussion Paper. Nurse Educ Today. 2017; 56: 29–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
36. Grun B, Hornick K: R package version 0.2-13. topicmodels: Topic Models. 2022; (accessed 3 Jul 2023). Reference Source
37. Silge J, Robinson D: tidytext: Text Mining and Analysis Using Tidy Data Principles in R. JOSS. 2016; 1(3): 37. Publisher Full Text
38. Sharma A, Minh Duc NT, Luu Lam Thang T, et al.: A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS). J Gen Intern Med. 2021; 36(10): 3179–3187. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
39. STROBE. 2023. Reference Source
40. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, et al.: Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations. Acad Med. 2014; 89(9): 1245–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
41. GOV.UK. NHS workforce: NHS workforce Ethnicity facts and figures. 2020; (accessed 22 Jan 2023). Reference Source
42. Croff R, Gowen LK, Lindauer A, et al.: Including older rural adults in research: Practical guidance for addressing the NIH Inclusion Across the Lifespan policy. J Clin Trans Sci. 2020; 4(5): 431–436. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
43. Danila MI, Allison JJ, Goins KV, et al.: Development of a multi-component intervention to promote participation of Black and Latinx individuals in biomedical research. J Clin Trans Sci. 2021; 5(1): e134. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
44. GOV.UK: Writing about ethnicity. Ethnicity facts and. 2021; (accessed 20 Mar 2023). Reference Source
45. NHS Confederation: Addressing vaccine hesitency in differnt ethnic communities. Publications, 2022; (accessed 3 Feb 2023). Reference Source
46. Black Women in Health (BWIH): COVID-19 vaccine hesitency - debunking the myths using a community engagement approach underpinned by NICE guidance. NICE Guidance, 2021; (accessed 3 Feb 2023). Reference Source
47. Falla AM, Veldhuijzen IK, Ahmad AA, et al.: Language support for linguistic minority chronic hepatitis B/C patients: an exploratory study of availability and clinicians’ perceptions of language barriers in six European countries. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017; 17(1): 150. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
48. Plumridge G, Redwood S, Greenfield S, et al.: Involving interpreters in research studies. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2012; 17(3): 190–2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
49. Feiring E, Westdahl S: Factors influencing the use of video interpretation compared to in-person interpretation in hospitals: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020; 20(1): 856. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
50. GOV.UK: Language interpreting and translation: migrant health guide. Advice and guidance on the health needs of migrant patients for healthcare practitioners. Migrant Health. 2021; (accessed 2 Dec 2023). Reference Source
51. Winter SS, Page-Reeves JM, Page KA, et al.: Inclusion of special populations in clinical research: important considerations and guidelines. J Clin Transl Res. 2018; 4(1): 56–69. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
52. Health Research Authority: NHS Health Research Authority Planning and improving research. Mental Capacity Act. 2021. Reference Source
53. Department of Health & Social Care: Research Reset. The future of UK Clinical Reserach Delivery. 2023; (accessed 20 Mar 2023). Reference Source

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 26 Jul 2023

Author details Author details

Theophile Bigirumurame
Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Meera Burgess
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

John Rouse
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

DC, MB, JR, and CW all work in some capacity for NIHR.

Grant information

This work was commissioned by NIHR and funded by NIHR CRN as part of the NIHR infrastructure.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 18 Dec 2023, 3:37

https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13434.2

version 1

Published: 26 Jul 2023, 3:37

https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13434.1

© 2023 Coe D et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

VIEWS

1836

downloads

168

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Coe D, Bigirumurame T, Burgess M et al. Enablers and barriers to engaging under-served groups in research: Survey of the United Kingdom research professional’s views [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res 2023, 3:37 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13434.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 26 Jul 2023

Views

Reviewer Report 03 Oct 2023

Kelly Beer, Myositis Discovery Programme, Perron Institute for Neurological and Translational Science, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia; Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14571.r30388

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article, and congratulations to the authors and study team on their work.

The article reports on new research conducted to better understand the gaps in access to clinical research within the UK, from the perspective of research professionals. A well-disseminated online survey has been utilised, with a mixed methods approach to elicit information regarding perceived under-served populations, barriers and enablers to participation in clinical research for these populations.

The article draws on the work within the NIHR INCLUDE program and has strong foundations in recent literature, particularly from within the UK and USA. The article is reported using standard reporting conventions and best practice guides.

The survey reported is a well-designed tool that has captured views of a large number of health professionals within the NIHR. Overall the article presents an interesting and valuable contribution to this field of knowledge. A number of minor revisions are suggested below to improve flow and readability, as well as to suggest some areas where deeper background or context would further enhance the article.

It’s always fantastic to read quality research in this important area, and the interest and passion of the authors clearly comes across, particularly in relation to the barriers that research professionals encounter in implementing innovations and strategies to improve equity of access to research.

The article provides strong evidence that the knowledge and expertise is available to combat many of the barriers to access for under-served groups, however system and resource challenges limit innovation and progress in this space.

Minor revisions suggested:

Style

Consider tense used throughout document (particularly within abstract) and keep consistent.

Abstract

Background

Suggest consistent use of the term ‘participant’, rather than ‘subject’.
Correct ‘effects’ to ‘affects’ (‘…and effects clinician prescribing’).
Rephrase sentence defining under-served to make the relationship between ‘underrepresented’ and ‘under-served’ terms within this study (or within the UK) explicit (i.e. suggest replace ‘thought of’ with ‘defined as’).
Clarify what is meant by ‘Works..’, i.e. replace with ‘Previous literature’ or similar.
Suggest replace ‘illness’ with ‘health’.
Expand sentence regarding survey aim (expand to include what views were being explored).

Methods

Word-count dependent – could consider including target audience/dissemination information within first sentence.

Results

Reference here to previous literature, but it is unclear to the reader whether this refers to one previous study or the general evidence in this field.
Consider wording carefully here – it is a little confusing on first read, as it reads as though the general population were surveyed to identify the groups and factors related to being under-served, but it is important to articulate that this is a reported perception of who is under-served, based on views of research professionals, not a survey of the general population themselves.

Conclusion

References confirmation of USA findings, however this previous research isn’t referenced otherwise within the abstract. If this article was building on USA research or replicating work from the USA, this should be described in the background section. As per comment for ‘Results’, clarification regarding what previous literature is being confirmed would be helpful. If just one previous study is being referenced/validated, this should be explicit. The second sentence also appears to build on findings from a previous study, but these are interesting stand-alone findings (new knowledge) from this study.
Again, ensure that it is clear that the study reports on views of research professionals, not views of the under-served populations themselves.
Last sentence needs to be checked – is there a word missing related to consent? Revise to clarify/correct.

Keywords

These are consistent with the article. Could also use ‘clinical research professional’, ‘clinical research practitioner’, or ‘clinical research nurse’.

Plain language summary

In some sentences the explanatory terms used for simple concepts have increased complexity e.g. ‘…in a questionnaire found on the internet’ could be replaced with ‘…in an online survey’, and ’13 out of 100’ can be replaced with 13%. I would suggest reviewing with lay panel members/consumers, or even utilising AI software that provides ‘plain language’ outputs, to edit this summary and ensure sentences are simple and concise. Ensure the sentence structure clearly identifies the subject (e.g. ‘they’ is used extensively, but it is not always clear who this refers to).
Unclear as to what is meant by carrying out research ‘…in the community’. Suggest rewording for those unfamiliar with health terminology to be explicit that this means research taking place outside of traditional hospital/research facilities.

Introduction

The first sentence should be referenced and this section would benefit from elaboration regarding the status quo. The lack of diversity in clinical research is the main premise that underpins the study, so it would be interesting here to see some recent statistics around clinical research participation and perhaps an example or two from recent literature as to the impact of including only a homogenous group of participants.
Line about NIHR INCLUDE – ‘…involving them directly in producing the definition above.’ Which sentence/definition does this refer to? Reword to clarify meaning and retain flow for the reader.
Consider expanding reference/information regarding the recent work in this area in the USA, as this work is referred to in both the abstract and conclusion.
Reference in next paragraph first sentence to ‘…nature of the concept…’ – what concept and which ‘terms’ does this refer to? Although it will increase repetition, as a reader it would be much easier to be explicit regarding each sentence’s subject to help the reader understand meaning and intention. Particularly within this paragraph, but please consider throughout the article. It becomes clearer with second or third read, but is quite confusing on first read.
When describing how previous works link terms, can you give some examples as well as the descriptors, again to help the reader follow what you are describing? E.g. ‘Many narrow the focus to engagement within a named group and a specific disease, e.g. females underrepresented in heart disease research…’
Last sentence (related to what the survey covered) – ‘what barriers exist..’, does this refer to barriers for participants or barriers to change?
The gap in access/involvement for under-served groups is well described, but I would be interested to read a little more within the introduction about any identified gaps in health professional understanding of barriers/enablers that drove this study to investigate their views. I.e. why is understanding health professionals’ views important to improve equity of access and diversity in clinical research?

Methods

Patient and Public Involvement

It may be appropriate to move the information regarding peer review of the survey (within ‘Survey Development’) to this section, as this constitutes consumer involvement, as meaningful input from the target audience to study design.

Survey development

It would be helpful to expand upon how the literature review was utilised in the survey design, particularly related to determining the 10 factors that impact being under-served that were used in the survey for ranking.

Recruitment and data collection

‘…local clinical research network…’ Needs capitalising?
Include (CRN) in brackets after ‘Clinical Research Network’ as CRN acronym is used further within the paragraph.
I don’t think the example provided regarding the North East and North Cumbria CRN is necessary. The dissemination approach is well described and this is a little confusing with the number of email invites listed just for this area. It would be interesting instead to read an estimate of how many research professionals were reached through the network and perhaps an idea of what kind of roles (e.g. research nurse, AHP, etc).
The questionnaire was described as anonymous, however (optionally) contact details were collected? What was the purpose of the inclusion of contact details and how/what did the study team follow up with for those who provided contact details?

Analysis

Well described and information provided that would allow replication of methods and analysis.

Results

Demographics

Did all 945 complete the survey in full? Or was this the total number of completed surveys? Were there many/any who started the survey but did not complete it?
Could you expand on ‘all components of the NIHR infrastructure and Clinical Specialties…’ for readers who may not be familiar with the NIHR/NHS structure?
Demographic data is well covered, but this data would be nicely represented as an infographics summary rather than in-text. Particularly the geographical data, also to aid those outside the UK who may not be familiar with regions.

Place of work and role

Information is provided on the type of role activities (consenting, identifying participants), but was information also collected on the role of respondents? Or length of time in research role?

Who are the under-served

…in their area’ – Does this refer to geographical area, CRN, or clinical specialism?
Reference to previous literature could come within Discussion, as it’s not expanded here, so is difficult to know which literature this refers to (a specific study, or the current body of knowledge?).
Repetition of text within Table 1 descriptor and results text.

What impacts on being under-served

Repetition of text within Figure 1 descriptor and results text
Suggest describing the 10 responses to be ranked.

Addressing the needs of the under-served

Is there a significance of gender to warrant inclusion of that info within the brackets alongside number of respondees? There may be many other sub-group analyses (age, role, region, specialism) that would be relevant to include if this was part of the research question(s), but if there were not specific sub-group analyses done on these questions by gender or any other demographic, I would suggest removing the gender breakdown info to make it easier to read.
Perhaps consider capitalising the response options to make it easier for the reader to follow which result each sentence is reporting. For example, within the sentence, ‘A significant difference is also seen in those who identify research participants who felt partially equipped….’, it is not clear on first read that the result being reported in this sentence relates to number of respondees identifying as ‘Partially Equipped’, rather than reporting on those who identify research participants.
Correct to ‘receiving consent’ (rather than ‘taking consent’). Again in the following sentence, rephrase to ‘receiving consent’.

Qualitative analysis

Enablers and Barriers

May be helpful to firstly introduce/summarise the main themes found in each sub-section before expanding on each.
An overview/summary table with the themes identified across Enablers and Barriers could work well?
There is some cross-over here with content that could easily fit within the Discussion section or is repeated there.
For consistency, include sub-group analysis for barriers, to report on most cited barriers for primary care and mental health groups.

Further information and training

The final paragraph to this section could fit within the Discussion, or even Conclusion, as the findings are nicely summarised here.

Discussion

Provides a nice summary and delve into the results, with interesting observations drawn and areas for further research identified.
Do draw the reader back to the context of the study to acknowledge limitations – this study is reporting on perceived factors that impact being under-served from the perspective of research professionals, not based on surveying the general population or under-served populations themselves.

Conclusion

I would prefer a high level summary of the findings from this study regarding who is under-served and the main factors related to this, rather than the reference back to the USA literature.
Review phrase ‘…to conduct where possible research in the community…’. Might need a comma or just a tweak.
Final sentence refers back to ‘underrepresentation’. For consistency, should this be amended to refer to the under-served populations?

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Clinical Research Nursing, Research Participation, Research Delivery, Practice Standards

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 18 Dec 2023

Dorothy Coe, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, UK

18 Dec 2023

Author Response

Response: Thank you for the detailed review of our work. We have discussed the comments made and revised in light of our discussions.

Style: Consider tense used throughout document ... Continue reading Response: Thank you for the detailed review of our work. We have discussed the comments made and revised in light of our discussions.

Style: Consider tense used throughout document (particularly within abstract) and keep consistent.

Response: Reviewed as requested.

Abstract:
Background
Suggest consistent use of the term ‘participant’, rather than ‘subject’.
Correct ‘effects’ to ‘affects’ (‘…and effects clinician prescribing’).
Rephrase sentence defining under-served to make the relationship between ‘underrepresented’ and ‘under-served’ terms within this study (or within the UK) explicit (i.e. suggest replace ‘thought of’ with ‘defined as’).
Clarify what is meant by ‘Works..’, i.e. replace with ‘Previous literature’ or similar.
Suggest replace ‘illness’ with ‘health’.
Expand sentence regarding survey aim (expand to include what views were being explored).
Methods
Word-count dependent – could consider including target audience/dissemination information within first sentence.
Results
Reference here to previous literature, but it is unclear to the reader whether this refers to one previous study or the general evidence in this field.
Consider wording carefully here – it is a little confusing on first read, as it reads as though the general population were surveyed to identify the groups and factors related to being under-served, but it is important to articulate that this is a reported perception of who is under-served, based on views of research professionals, not a survey of the general population themselves.
Conclusion
References confirmation of USA findings, however this previous research isn’t referenced otherwise within the abstract. If this article was building on USA research or replicating work from the USA, this should be described in the background section. As per comment for ‘Results’, clarification regarding what previous literature is being confirmed would be helpful. If just one previous study is being referenced/validated, this should be explicit. The second sentence also appears to build on findings from a previous study, but these are interesting stand-alone findings (new knowledge) from this study.
Again, ensure that it is clear that the study reports on views of research professionals, not views of the under-served populations themselves.
Last sentence needs to be checked – is there a word missing related to consent? Revise to clarify/correct.

Response: A new abstract as been produced taking into account the above comments and the allowed word count.

Keywords:
These are consistent with the article. Could also use ‘clinical research professional’, ‘clinical research practitioner’, or ‘clinical research nurse’.

Response: These terms are not consistent with our work as participants included non-clinical research staff.

Plain language summary:
In some sentences the explanatory terms used for simple concepts have increased complexity e.g. ‘…in a questionnaire found on the internet’ could be replaced with ‘…in an online survey’, and ’13 out of 100’ can be replaced with 13%. I would suggest reviewing with lay panel members/consumers, or even utilising AI software that provides ‘plain language’ outputs, to edit this summary and ensure sentences are simple and concise. Ensure the sentence structure clearly identifies the subject (e.g. ‘they’ is used extensively, but it is not always clear who this refers to).
Unclear as to what is meant by carrying out research ‘…in the community’. Suggest rewording for those unfamiliar with health terminology to be explicit that this means research taking place outside of traditional hospital/research facilities.

Response: Advice taken as suggested and reviews made in light of comments received.

Introduction:
The first sentence should be referenced and this section would benefit from elaboration regarding the status quo. The lack of diversity in clinical research is the main premise that underpins the study, so it would be interesting here to see some recent statistics around clinical research participation and perhaps an example or two from recent literature as to the impact of including only a homogenous group of participants.
Line about NIHR INCLUDE – ‘…involving them directly in producing the definition above.’ Which sentence/definition does this refer to? Reword to clarify meaning and retain flow for the reader.
Consider expanding reference/information regarding the recent work in this area in the USA, as this work is referred to in both the abstract and conclusion.
Reference in next paragraph first sentence to ‘…nature of the concept…’ – what concept and which ‘terms’ does this refer to? Although it will increase repetition, as a reader it would be much easier to be explicit regarding each sentence’s subject to help the reader understand meaning and intention. Particularly within this paragraph, but please consider throughout the article. It becomes clearer with second or third read, but is quite confusing on first read.
When describing how previous works link terms, can you give some examples as well as the descriptors, again to help the reader follow what you are describing? E.g. ‘Many narrow the focus to engagement within a named group and a specific disease, e.g. females underrepresented in heart disease research…’
Last sentence (related to what the survey covered) – ‘what barriers exist..’, does this refer to barriers for participants or barriers to change?
The gap in access/involvement for under-served groups is well described, but I would be interested to read a little more within the introduction about any identified gaps in health professional understanding of barriers/enablers that drove this study to investigate their views. I.e. why is understanding health professionals’ views important to improve equity of access and diversity in clinical research?

Response: Revised with comments taken into account.

Methods:
Patient and Public Involvement
It may be appropriate to move the information regarding peer review of the survey (within ‘Survey Development’) to this section, as this constitutes consumer involvement, as meaningful input from the target audience to study design.
Survey development
It would be helpful to expand upon how the literature review was utilised in the survey design, particularly related to determining the 10 factors that impact being under-served that were used in the survey for ranking.
Recruitment and data collection
‘…local clinical research network…’ Needs capitalising?
Include (CRN) in brackets after ‘Clinical Research Network’ as CRN acronym is used further within the paragraph.

I don’t think the example provided regarding the North East and North Cumbria CRN is necessary. The dissemination approach is well described and this is a little confusing with the number of email invites listed just for this area. It would be interesting instead to read an estimate of how many research professionals were reached through the network and perhaps an idea of what kind of roles (e.g. research nurse, AHP, etc).

The questionnaire was described as anonymous, however (optionally) contact details were collected? What was the purpose of the inclusion of contact details and how/what did the study team follow up with for those who provided contact details?
Analysis
Well described and information provided that would allow replication of methods and analysis.

Response: PPIE moved as suggested although the Editors may have an alternative suggestion. The example from the NENC CRN was requested by the editors. Granular information on job type (Nurse AHP etc) was not collected. Thank you for pointing out the inaccuracy regarding anonymity. The survey was anonymous. Respondents were invited to leave their contact details for the NIHR under-served programme board. This was to collect 'best practice' examples and was outside of the research project reported. The study staff were not involved in the collection of email addresses or the production of best practice examples.

Results:
Demographics
Did all 945 complete the survey in full? Or was this the total number of completed surveys? Were there many/any who started the survey but did not complete it?
Could you expand on ‘all components of the NIHR infrastructure and Clinical Specialties…’ for readers who may not be familiar with the NIHR/NHS structure?
Demographic data is well covered, but this data would be nicely represented as an infographics summary rather than in-text. Particularly the geographical data, also to aid those outside the UK who may not be familiar with regions.
Place of work and role
Information is provided on the type of role activities (consenting, identifying participants), but was information also collected on the role of respondents? Or length of time in research role?

Who are the under-served…in their area’ – Does this refer to geographical area, CRN, or clinical specialism?

Reference to previous literature could come within Discussion, as it’s not expanded here, so is difficult to know which literature this refers to (a specific study, or the current body of knowledge?).
Repetition of text within Table 1 descriptor and results text.
What impacts on being under-served
Repetition of text within Figure 1 descriptor and results text
Suggest describing the 10 responses to be ranked.
Addressing the needs of the under-served

Is there a significance of gender to warrant inclusion of that info within the brackets alongside number of respondees? There may be many other sub-group analyses (age, role, region, specialism) that would be relevant to include if this was part of the research question(s), but if there were not specific sub-group analyses done on these questions by gender or any other demographic, I would suggest removing the gender breakdown info to make it easier to read.

Perhaps consider capitalising the response options to make it easier for the reader to follow which result each sentence is reporting. For example, within the sentence, ‘A significant difference is also seen in those who identify research participants who felt partially equipped….’, it is not clear on first read that the result being reported in this sentence relates to number of respondees identifying as ‘Partially Equipped’, rather than reporting on those who identify research participants.

Correct to ‘receiving consent’ (rather than ‘taking consent’). Again in the following sentence, rephrase to ‘receiving consent’.
Qualitative analysis
Enablers and Barriers
May be helpful to firstly introduce/summarise the main themes found in each sub-section before expanding on each.

An overview/summary table with the themes identified across Enablers and Barriers could work well?
There is some cross-over here with content that could easily fit within the Discussion section or is repeated there.
For consistency, include sub-group analysis for barriers, to report on most cited barriers for primary care and mental health groups.
Further information and training

The final paragraph to this section could fit within the Discussion, or even Conclusion, as the findings are nicely summarised here.

Response: The respondent interpreted 'in their area'. Repetition, the submission requires tables and figures are discussed within the text, therefore to some extent repetition cannot be avoided. However a formatting error has been corrected which had led to whole paragraphs being repeated. The 10 factors are described within the figure. The inclusion of gender (whether significant or not) was requested by the editors. We feel that additional capitisation detracts from the presentation of the work, but will be guided by the editors. Consent phrasing has be revised as suggested. We feel an overview/summary table in not required and would lead to repetition. Sub-group analysis has been added to the 'further information and training' section. We have chosen to leave the interim conclusions at the end of the results section.

Discussion:
Provides a nice summary and delve into the results, with interesting observations drawn and areas for further research identified.
Do draw the reader back to the context of the study to acknowledge limitations – this study is reporting on perceived factors that impact being under-served from the perspective of research professionals, not based on surveying the general population or under-served populations themselves.

Response: Additions to the limitations section have been added.

Conclusion:
I would prefer a high level summary of the findings from this study regarding who is under-served and the main factors related to this, rather than the reference back to the USA literature.
Review phrase ‘…to conduct where possible research in the community…’. Might need a comma or just a tweak.
Final sentence refers back to ‘underrepresentation’. For consistency, should this be amended to refer to the under-served populations?

Response: A higher level summary has been added as requested. Thank you for pointing out errors in phrasing.
Response: Thank you for the detailed review of our work. We have discussed the comments made and revised in light of our discussions.

Style: Consider tense used throughout document (particularly within abstract) and keep consistent.

Response: Reviewed as requested.

Abstract:
Background
Suggest consistent use of the term ‘participant’, rather than ‘subject’.
Correct ‘effects’ to ‘affects’ (‘…and effects clinician prescribing’).
Rephrase sentence defining under-served to make the relationship between ‘underrepresented’ and ‘under-served’ terms within this study (or within the UK) explicit (i.e. suggest replace ‘thought of’ with ‘defined as’).
Clarify what is meant by ‘Works..’, i.e. replace with ‘Previous literature’ or similar.
Suggest replace ‘illness’ with ‘health’.
Expand sentence regarding survey aim (expand to include what views were being explored).
Methods
Word-count dependent – could consider including target audience/dissemination information within first sentence.
Results
Reference here to previous literature, but it is unclear to the reader whether this refers to one previous study or the general evidence in this field.
Consider wording carefully here – it is a little confusing on first read, as it reads as though the general population were surveyed to identify the groups and factors related to being under-served, but it is important to articulate that this is a reported perception of who is under-served, based on views of research professionals, not a survey of the general population themselves.
Conclusion
References confirmation of USA findings, however this previous research isn’t referenced otherwise within the abstract. If this article was building on USA research or replicating work from the USA, this should be described in the background section. As per comment for ‘Results’, clarification regarding what previous literature is being confirmed would be helpful. If just one previous study is being referenced/validated, this should be explicit. The second sentence also appears to build on findings from a previous study, but these are interesting stand-alone findings (new knowledge) from this study.
Again, ensure that it is clear that the study reports on views of research professionals, not views of the under-served populations themselves.
Last sentence needs to be checked – is there a word missing related to consent? Revise to clarify/correct.

Response: A new abstract as been produced taking into account the above comments and the allowed word count.

Keywords:
These are consistent with the article. Could also use ‘clinical research professional’, ‘clinical research practitioner’, or ‘clinical research nurse’.

Response: These terms are not consistent with our work as participants included non-clinical research staff.

Plain language summary:
In some sentences the explanatory terms used for simple concepts have increased complexity e.g. ‘…in a questionnaire found on the internet’ could be replaced with ‘…in an online survey’, and ’13 out of 100’ can be replaced with 13%. I would suggest reviewing with lay panel members/consumers, or even utilising AI software that provides ‘plain language’ outputs, to edit this summary and ensure sentences are simple and concise. Ensure the sentence structure clearly identifies the subject (e.g. ‘they’ is used extensively, but it is not always clear who this refers to).
Unclear as to what is meant by carrying out research ‘…in the community’. Suggest rewording for those unfamiliar with health terminology to be explicit that this means research taking place outside of traditional hospital/research facilities.

Response: Advice taken as suggested and reviews made in light of comments received.

Introduction:
The first sentence should be referenced and this section would benefit from elaboration regarding the status quo. The lack of diversity in clinical research is the main premise that underpins the study, so it would be interesting here to see some recent statistics around clinical research participation and perhaps an example or two from recent literature as to the impact of including only a homogenous group of participants.
Line about NIHR INCLUDE – ‘…involving them directly in producing the definition above.’ Which sentence/definition does this refer to? Reword to clarify meaning and retain flow for the reader.
Consider expanding reference/information regarding the recent work in this area in the USA, as this work is referred to in both the abstract and conclusion.
Reference in next paragraph first sentence to ‘…nature of the concept…’ – what concept and which ‘terms’ does this refer to? Although it will increase repetition, as a reader it would be much easier to be explicit regarding each sentence’s subject to help the reader understand meaning and intention. Particularly within this paragraph, but please consider throughout the article. It becomes clearer with second or third read, but is quite confusing on first read.
When describing how previous works link terms, can you give some examples as well as the descriptors, again to help the reader follow what you are describing? E.g. ‘Many narrow the focus to engagement within a named group and a specific disease, e.g. females underrepresented in heart disease research…’
Last sentence (related to what the survey covered) – ‘what barriers exist..’, does this refer to barriers for participants or barriers to change?
The gap in access/involvement for under-served groups is well described, but I would be interested to read a little more within the introduction about any identified gaps in health professional understanding of barriers/enablers that drove this study to investigate their views. I.e. why is understanding health professionals’ views important to improve equity of access and diversity in clinical research?

Response: Revised with comments taken into account.

Methods:
Patient and Public Involvement
It may be appropriate to move the information regarding peer review of the survey (within ‘Survey Development’) to this section, as this constitutes consumer involvement, as meaningful input from the target audience to study design.
Survey development
It would be helpful to expand upon how the literature review was utilised in the survey design, particularly related to determining the 10 factors that impact being under-served that were used in the survey for ranking.
Recruitment and data collection
‘…local clinical research network…’ Needs capitalising?
Include (CRN) in brackets after ‘Clinical Research Network’ as CRN acronym is used further within the paragraph.

I don’t think the example provided regarding the North East and North Cumbria CRN is necessary. The dissemination approach is well described and this is a little confusing with the number of email invites listed just for this area. It would be interesting instead to read an estimate of how many research professionals were reached through the network and perhaps an idea of what kind of roles (e.g. research nurse, AHP, etc).

The questionnaire was described as anonymous, however (optionally) contact details were collected? What was the purpose of the inclusion of contact details and how/what did the study team follow up with for those who provided contact details?
Analysis
Well described and information provided that would allow replication of methods and analysis.

Response: PPIE moved as suggested although the Editors may have an alternative suggestion. The example from the NENC CRN was requested by the editors. Granular information on job type (Nurse AHP etc) was not collected. Thank you for pointing out the inaccuracy regarding anonymity. The survey was anonymous. Respondents were invited to leave their contact details for the NIHR under-served programme board. This was to collect 'best practice' examples and was outside of the research project reported. The study staff were not involved in the collection of email addresses or the production of best practice examples.

Results:
Demographics
Did all 945 complete the survey in full? Or was this the total number of completed surveys? Were there many/any who started the survey but did not complete it?
Could you expand on ‘all components of the NIHR infrastructure and Clinical Specialties…’ for readers who may not be familiar with the NIHR/NHS structure?
Demographic data is well covered, but this data would be nicely represented as an infographics summary rather than in-text. Particularly the geographical data, also to aid those outside the UK who may not be familiar with regions.
Place of work and role
Information is provided on the type of role activities (consenting, identifying participants), but was information also collected on the role of respondents? Or length of time in research role?

Who are the under-served…in their area’ – Does this refer to geographical area, CRN, or clinical specialism?

Reference to previous literature could come within Discussion, as it’s not expanded here, so is difficult to know which literature this refers to (a specific study, or the current body of knowledge?).
Repetition of text within Table 1 descriptor and results text.
What impacts on being under-served
Repetition of text within Figure 1 descriptor and results text
Suggest describing the 10 responses to be ranked.
Addressing the needs of the under-served

Is there a significance of gender to warrant inclusion of that info within the brackets alongside number of respondees? There may be many other sub-group analyses (age, role, region, specialism) that would be relevant to include if this was part of the research question(s), but if there were not specific sub-group analyses done on these questions by gender or any other demographic, I would suggest removing the gender breakdown info to make it easier to read.

Perhaps consider capitalising the response options to make it easier for the reader to follow which result each sentence is reporting. For example, within the sentence, ‘A significant difference is also seen in those who identify research participants who felt partially equipped….’, it is not clear on first read that the result being reported in this sentence relates to number of respondees identifying as ‘Partially Equipped’, rather than reporting on those who identify research participants.

Correct to ‘receiving consent’ (rather than ‘taking consent’). Again in the following sentence, rephrase to ‘receiving consent’.
Qualitative analysis
Enablers and Barriers
May be helpful to firstly introduce/summarise the main themes found in each sub-section before expanding on each.

An overview/summary table with the themes identified across Enablers and Barriers could work well?
There is some cross-over here with content that could easily fit within the Discussion section or is repeated there.
For consistency, include sub-group analysis for barriers, to report on most cited barriers for primary care and mental health groups.
Further information and training

The final paragraph to this section could fit within the Discussion, or even Conclusion, as the findings are nicely summarised here.

Response: The respondent interpreted 'in their area'. Repetition, the submission requires tables and figures are discussed within the text, therefore to some extent repetition cannot be avoided. However a formatting error has been corrected which had led to whole paragraphs being repeated. The 10 factors are described within the figure. The inclusion of gender (whether significant or not) was requested by the editors. We feel that additional capitisation detracts from the presentation of the work, but will be guided by the editors. Consent phrasing has be revised as suggested. We feel an overview/summary table in not required and would lead to repetition. Sub-group analysis has been added to the 'further information and training' section. We have chosen to leave the interim conclusions at the end of the results section.

Discussion:
Provides a nice summary and delve into the results, with interesting observations drawn and areas for further research identified.
Do draw the reader back to the context of the study to acknowledge limitations – this study is reporting on perceived factors that impact being under-served from the perspective of research professionals, not based on surveying the general population or under-served populations themselves.

Response: Additions to the limitations section have been added.

Conclusion:
I would prefer a high level summary of the findings from this study regarding who is under-served and the main factors related to this, rather than the reference back to the USA literature.
Review phrase ‘…to conduct where possible research in the community…’. Might need a comma or just a tweak.
Final sentence refers back to ‘underrepresentation’. For consistency, should this be amended to refer to the under-served populations?

Response: A higher level summary has been added as requested. Thank you for pointing out errors in phrasing.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 18 Dec 2023

Dorothy Coe, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, UK

18 Dec 2023

Author Response

Response: Thank you for the detailed review of our work. We have discussed the comments made and revised in light of our discussions.

Style: Consider tense used throughout document ... Continue reading Response: Thank you for the detailed review of our work. We have discussed the comments made and revised in light of our discussions.

Style: Consider tense used throughout document (particularly within abstract) and keep consistent.

Response: Reviewed as requested.

Abstract:
Background
Suggest consistent use of the term ‘participant’, rather than ‘subject’.
Correct ‘effects’ to ‘affects’ (‘…and effects clinician prescribing’).
Rephrase sentence defining under-served to make the relationship between ‘underrepresented’ and ‘under-served’ terms within this study (or within the UK) explicit (i.e. suggest replace ‘thought of’ with ‘defined as’).
Clarify what is meant by ‘Works..’, i.e. replace with ‘Previous literature’ or similar.
Suggest replace ‘illness’ with ‘health’.
Expand sentence regarding survey aim (expand to include what views were being explored).
Methods
Word-count dependent – could consider including target audience/dissemination information within first sentence.
Results
Reference here to previous literature, but it is unclear to the reader whether this refers to one previous study or the general evidence in this field.
Consider wording carefully here – it is a little confusing on first read, as it reads as though the general population were surveyed to identify the groups and factors related to being under-served, but it is important to articulate that this is a reported perception of who is under-served, based on views of research professionals, not a survey of the general population themselves.
Conclusion
References confirmation of USA findings, however this previous research isn’t referenced otherwise within the abstract. If this article was building on USA research or replicating work from the USA, this should be described in the background section. As per comment for ‘Results’, clarification regarding what previous literature is being confirmed would be helpful. If just one previous study is being referenced/validated, this should be explicit. The second sentence also appears to build on findings from a previous study, but these are interesting stand-alone findings (new knowledge) from this study.
Again, ensure that it is clear that the study reports on views of research professionals, not views of the under-served populations themselves.
Last sentence needs to be checked – is there a word missing related to consent? Revise to clarify/correct.

Response: A new abstract as been produced taking into account the above comments and the allowed word count.

Keywords:
These are consistent with the article. Could also use ‘clinical research professional’, ‘clinical research practitioner’, or ‘clinical research nurse’.

Response: These terms are not consistent with our work as participants included non-clinical research staff.

Plain language summary:
In some sentences the explanatory terms used for simple concepts have increased complexity e.g. ‘…in a questionnaire found on the internet’ could be replaced with ‘…in an online survey’, and ’13 out of 100’ can be replaced with 13%. I would suggest reviewing with lay panel members/consumers, or even utilising AI software that provides ‘plain language’ outputs, to edit this summary and ensure sentences are simple and concise. Ensure the sentence structure clearly identifies the subject (e.g. ‘they’ is used extensively, but it is not always clear who this refers to).
Unclear as to what is meant by carrying out research ‘…in the community’. Suggest rewording for those unfamiliar with health terminology to be explicit that this means research taking place outside of traditional hospital/research facilities.

Response: Advice taken as suggested and reviews made in light of comments received.

Introduction:
The first sentence should be referenced and this section would benefit from elaboration regarding the status quo. The lack of diversity in clinical research is the main premise that underpins the study, so it would be interesting here to see some recent statistics around clinical research participation and perhaps an example or two from recent literature as to the impact of including only a homogenous group of participants.
Line about NIHR INCLUDE – ‘…involving them directly in producing the definition above.’ Which sentence/definition does this refer to? Reword to clarify meaning and retain flow for the reader.
Consider expanding reference/information regarding the recent work in this area in the USA, as this work is referred to in both the abstract and conclusion.
Reference in next paragraph first sentence to ‘…nature of the concept…’ – what concept and which ‘terms’ does this refer to? Although it will increase repetition, as a reader it would be much easier to be explicit regarding each sentence’s subject to help the reader understand meaning and intention. Particularly within this paragraph, but please consider throughout the article. It becomes clearer with second or third read, but is quite confusing on first read.
When describing how previous works link terms, can you give some examples as well as the descriptors, again to help the reader follow what you are describing? E.g. ‘Many narrow the focus to engagement within a named group and a specific disease, e.g. females underrepresented in heart disease research…’
Last sentence (related to what the survey covered) – ‘what barriers exist..’, does this refer to barriers for participants or barriers to change?
The gap in access/involvement for under-served groups is well described, but I would be interested to read a little more within the introduction about any identified gaps in health professional understanding of barriers/enablers that drove this study to investigate their views. I.e. why is understanding health professionals’ views important to improve equity of access and diversity in clinical research?

Response: Revised with comments taken into account.

Methods:
Patient and Public Involvement
It may be appropriate to move the information regarding peer review of the survey (within ‘Survey Development’) to this section, as this constitutes consumer involvement, as meaningful input from the target audience to study design.
Survey development
It would be helpful to expand upon how the literature review was utilised in the survey design, particularly related to determining the 10 factors that impact being under-served that were used in the survey for ranking.
Recruitment and data collection
‘…local clinical research network…’ Needs capitalising?
Include (CRN) in brackets after ‘Clinical Research Network’ as CRN acronym is used further within the paragraph.

I don’t think the example provided regarding the North East and North Cumbria CRN is necessary. The dissemination approach is well described and this is a little confusing with the number of email invites listed just for this area. It would be interesting instead to read an estimate of how many research professionals were reached through the network and perhaps an idea of what kind of roles (e.g. research nurse, AHP, etc).

The questionnaire was described as anonymous, however (optionally) contact details were collected? What was the purpose of the inclusion of contact details and how/what did the study team follow up with for those who provided contact details?
Analysis
Well described and information provided that would allow replication of methods and analysis.

Response: PPIE moved as suggested although the Editors may have an alternative suggestion. The example from the NENC CRN was requested by the editors. Granular information on job type (Nurse AHP etc) was not collected. Thank you for pointing out the inaccuracy regarding anonymity. The survey was anonymous. Respondents were invited to leave their contact details for the NIHR under-served programme board. This was to collect 'best practice' examples and was outside of the research project reported. The study staff were not involved in the collection of email addresses or the production of best practice examples.

Results:
Demographics
Did all 945 complete the survey in full? Or was this the total number of completed surveys? Were there many/any who started the survey but did not complete it?
Could you expand on ‘all components of the NIHR infrastructure and Clinical Specialties…’ for readers who may not be familiar with the NIHR/NHS structure?
Demographic data is well covered, but this data would be nicely represented as an infographics summary rather than in-text. Particularly the geographical data, also to aid those outside the UK who may not be familiar with regions.
Place of work and role
Information is provided on the type of role activities (consenting, identifying participants), but was information also collected on the role of respondents? Or length of time in research role?

Who are the under-served…in their area’ – Does this refer to geographical area, CRN, or clinical specialism?

Reference to previous literature could come within Discussion, as it’s not expanded here, so is difficult to know which literature this refers to (a specific study, or the current body of knowledge?).
Repetition of text within Table 1 descriptor and results text.
What impacts on being under-served
Repetition of text within Figure 1 descriptor and results text
Suggest describing the 10 responses to be ranked.
Addressing the needs of the under-served

Is there a significance of gender to warrant inclusion of that info within the brackets alongside number of respondees? There may be many other sub-group analyses (age, role, region, specialism) that would be relevant to include if this was part of the research question(s), but if there were not specific sub-group analyses done on these questions by gender or any other demographic, I would suggest removing the gender breakdown info to make it easier to read.

Perhaps consider capitalising the response options to make it easier for the reader to follow which result each sentence is reporting. For example, within the sentence, ‘A significant difference is also seen in those who identify research participants who felt partially equipped….’, it is not clear on first read that the result being reported in this sentence relates to number of respondees identifying as ‘Partially Equipped’, rather than reporting on those who identify research participants.

Correct to ‘receiving consent’ (rather than ‘taking consent’). Again in the following sentence, rephrase to ‘receiving consent’.
Qualitative analysis
Enablers and Barriers
May be helpful to firstly introduce/summarise the main themes found in each sub-section before expanding on each.

An overview/summary table with the themes identified across Enablers and Barriers could work well?
There is some cross-over here with content that could easily fit within the Discussion section or is repeated there.
For consistency, include sub-group analysis for barriers, to report on most cited barriers for primary care and mental health groups.
Further information and training

The final paragraph to this section could fit within the Discussion, or even Conclusion, as the findings are nicely summarised here.

Response: The respondent interpreted 'in their area'. Repetition, the submission requires tables and figures are discussed within the text, therefore to some extent repetition cannot be avoided. However a formatting error has been corrected which had led to whole paragraphs being repeated. The 10 factors are described within the figure. The inclusion of gender (whether significant or not) was requested by the editors. We feel that additional capitisation detracts from the presentation of the work, but will be guided by the editors. Consent phrasing has be revised as suggested. We feel an overview/summary table in not required and would lead to repetition. Sub-group analysis has been added to the 'further information and training' section. We have chosen to leave the interim conclusions at the end of the results section.

Discussion:
Provides a nice summary and delve into the results, with interesting observations drawn and areas for further research identified.
Do draw the reader back to the context of the study to acknowledge limitations – this study is reporting on perceived factors that impact being under-served from the perspective of research professionals, not based on surveying the general population or under-served populations themselves.

Response: Additions to the limitations section have been added.

Conclusion:
I would prefer a high level summary of the findings from this study regarding who is under-served and the main factors related to this, rather than the reference back to the USA literature.
Review phrase ‘…to conduct where possible research in the community…’. Might need a comma or just a tweak.
Final sentence refers back to ‘underrepresentation’. For consistency, should this be amended to refer to the under-served populations?

Response: A higher level summary has been added as requested. Thank you for pointing out errors in phrasing.
Response: Thank you for the detailed review of our work. We have discussed the comments made and revised in light of our discussions.

Style: Consider tense used throughout document (particularly within abstract) and keep consistent.

Response: Reviewed as requested.

Abstract:
Background
Suggest consistent use of the term ‘participant’, rather than ‘subject’.
Correct ‘effects’ to ‘affects’ (‘…and effects clinician prescribing’).
Rephrase sentence defining under-served to make the relationship between ‘underrepresented’ and ‘under-served’ terms within this study (or within the UK) explicit (i.e. suggest replace ‘thought of’ with ‘defined as’).
Clarify what is meant by ‘Works..’, i.e. replace with ‘Previous literature’ or similar.
Suggest replace ‘illness’ with ‘health’.
Expand sentence regarding survey aim (expand to include what views were being explored).
Methods
Word-count dependent – could consider including target audience/dissemination information within first sentence.
Results
Reference here to previous literature, but it is unclear to the reader whether this refers to one previous study or the general evidence in this field.
Consider wording carefully here – it is a little confusing on first read, as it reads as though the general population were surveyed to identify the groups and factors related to being under-served, but it is important to articulate that this is a reported perception of who is under-served, based on views of research professionals, not a survey of the general population themselves.
Conclusion
References confirmation of USA findings, however this previous research isn’t referenced otherwise within the abstract. If this article was building on USA research or replicating work from the USA, this should be described in the background section. As per comment for ‘Results’, clarification regarding what previous literature is being confirmed would be helpful. If just one previous study is being referenced/validated, this should be explicit. The second sentence also appears to build on findings from a previous study, but these are interesting stand-alone findings (new knowledge) from this study.
Again, ensure that it is clear that the study reports on views of research professionals, not views of the under-served populations themselves.
Last sentence needs to be checked – is there a word missing related to consent? Revise to clarify/correct.

Response: A new abstract as been produced taking into account the above comments and the allowed word count.

Keywords:
These are consistent with the article. Could also use ‘clinical research professional’, ‘clinical research practitioner’, or ‘clinical research nurse’.

Response: These terms are not consistent with our work as participants included non-clinical research staff.

Plain language summary:
In some sentences the explanatory terms used for simple concepts have increased complexity e.g. ‘…in a questionnaire found on the internet’ could be replaced with ‘…in an online survey’, and ’13 out of 100’ can be replaced with 13%. I would suggest reviewing with lay panel members/consumers, or even utilising AI software that provides ‘plain language’ outputs, to edit this summary and ensure sentences are simple and concise. Ensure the sentence structure clearly identifies the subject (e.g. ‘they’ is used extensively, but it is not always clear who this refers to).
Unclear as to what is meant by carrying out research ‘…in the community’. Suggest rewording for those unfamiliar with health terminology to be explicit that this means research taking place outside of traditional hospital/research facilities.

Response: Advice taken as suggested and reviews made in light of comments received.

Introduction:
The first sentence should be referenced and this section would benefit from elaboration regarding the status quo. The lack of diversity in clinical research is the main premise that underpins the study, so it would be interesting here to see some recent statistics around clinical research participation and perhaps an example or two from recent literature as to the impact of including only a homogenous group of participants.
Line about NIHR INCLUDE – ‘…involving them directly in producing the definition above.’ Which sentence/definition does this refer to? Reword to clarify meaning and retain flow for the reader.
Consider expanding reference/information regarding the recent work in this area in the USA, as this work is referred to in both the abstract and conclusion.
Reference in next paragraph first sentence to ‘…nature of the concept…’ – what concept and which ‘terms’ does this refer to? Although it will increase repetition, as a reader it would be much easier to be explicit regarding each sentence’s subject to help the reader understand meaning and intention. Particularly within this paragraph, but please consider throughout the article. It becomes clearer with second or third read, but is quite confusing on first read.
When describing how previous works link terms, can you give some examples as well as the descriptors, again to help the reader follow what you are describing? E.g. ‘Many narrow the focus to engagement within a named group and a specific disease, e.g. females underrepresented in heart disease research…’
Last sentence (related to what the survey covered) – ‘what barriers exist..’, does this refer to barriers for participants or barriers to change?
The gap in access/involvement for under-served groups is well described, but I would be interested to read a little more within the introduction about any identified gaps in health professional understanding of barriers/enablers that drove this study to investigate their views. I.e. why is understanding health professionals’ views important to improve equity of access and diversity in clinical research?

Response: Revised with comments taken into account.

Methods:
Patient and Public Involvement
It may be appropriate to move the information regarding peer review of the survey (within ‘Survey Development’) to this section, as this constitutes consumer involvement, as meaningful input from the target audience to study design.
Survey development
It would be helpful to expand upon how the literature review was utilised in the survey design, particularly related to determining the 10 factors that impact being under-served that were used in the survey for ranking.
Recruitment and data collection
‘…local clinical research network…’ Needs capitalising?
Include (CRN) in brackets after ‘Clinical Research Network’ as CRN acronym is used further within the paragraph.

I don’t think the example provided regarding the North East and North Cumbria CRN is necessary. The dissemination approach is well described and this is a little confusing with the number of email invites listed just for this area. It would be interesting instead to read an estimate of how many research professionals were reached through the network and perhaps an idea of what kind of roles (e.g. research nurse, AHP, etc).

The questionnaire was described as anonymous, however (optionally) contact details were collected? What was the purpose of the inclusion of contact details and how/what did the study team follow up with for those who provided contact details?
Analysis
Well described and information provided that would allow replication of methods and analysis.

Response: PPIE moved as suggested although the Editors may have an alternative suggestion. The example from the NENC CRN was requested by the editors. Granular information on job type (Nurse AHP etc) was not collected. Thank you for pointing out the inaccuracy regarding anonymity. The survey was anonymous. Respondents were invited to leave their contact details for the NIHR under-served programme board. This was to collect 'best practice' examples and was outside of the research project reported. The study staff were not involved in the collection of email addresses or the production of best practice examples.

Results:
Demographics
Did all 945 complete the survey in full? Or was this the total number of completed surveys? Were there many/any who started the survey but did not complete it?
Could you expand on ‘all components of the NIHR infrastructure and Clinical Specialties…’ for readers who may not be familiar with the NIHR/NHS structure?
Demographic data is well covered, but this data would be nicely represented as an infographics summary rather than in-text. Particularly the geographical data, also to aid those outside the UK who may not be familiar with regions.
Place of work and role
Information is provided on the type of role activities (consenting, identifying participants), but was information also collected on the role of respondents? Or length of time in research role?

Who are the under-served…in their area’ – Does this refer to geographical area, CRN, or clinical specialism?

Reference to previous literature could come within Discussion, as it’s not expanded here, so is difficult to know which literature this refers to (a specific study, or the current body of knowledge?).
Repetition of text within Table 1 descriptor and results text.
What impacts on being under-served
Repetition of text within Figure 1 descriptor and results text
Suggest describing the 10 responses to be ranked.
Addressing the needs of the under-served

Is there a significance of gender to warrant inclusion of that info within the brackets alongside number of respondees? There may be many other sub-group analyses (age, role, region, specialism) that would be relevant to include if this was part of the research question(s), but if there were not specific sub-group analyses done on these questions by gender or any other demographic, I would suggest removing the gender breakdown info to make it easier to read.

Perhaps consider capitalising the response options to make it easier for the reader to follow which result each sentence is reporting. For example, within the sentence, ‘A significant difference is also seen in those who identify research participants who felt partially equipped….’, it is not clear on first read that the result being reported in this sentence relates to number of respondees identifying as ‘Partially Equipped’, rather than reporting on those who identify research participants.

Correct to ‘receiving consent’ (rather than ‘taking consent’). Again in the following sentence, rephrase to ‘receiving consent’.
Qualitative analysis
Enablers and Barriers
May be helpful to firstly introduce/summarise the main themes found in each sub-section before expanding on each.

An overview/summary table with the themes identified across Enablers and Barriers could work well?
There is some cross-over here with content that could easily fit within the Discussion section or is repeated there.
For consistency, include sub-group analysis for barriers, to report on most cited barriers for primary care and mental health groups.
Further information and training

The final paragraph to this section could fit within the Discussion, or even Conclusion, as the findings are nicely summarised here.

Response: The respondent interpreted 'in their area'. Repetition, the submission requires tables and figures are discussed within the text, therefore to some extent repetition cannot be avoided. However a formatting error has been corrected which had led to whole paragraphs being repeated. The 10 factors are described within the figure. The inclusion of gender (whether significant or not) was requested by the editors. We feel that additional capitisation detracts from the presentation of the work, but will be guided by the editors. Consent phrasing has be revised as suggested. We feel an overview/summary table in not required and would lead to repetition. Sub-group analysis has been added to the 'further information and training' section. We have chosen to leave the interim conclusions at the end of the results section.

Discussion:
Provides a nice summary and delve into the results, with interesting observations drawn and areas for further research identified.
Do draw the reader back to the context of the study to acknowledge limitations – this study is reporting on perceived factors that impact being under-served from the perspective of research professionals, not based on surveying the general population or under-served populations themselves.

Response: Additions to the limitations section have been added.

Conclusion:
I would prefer a high level summary of the findings from this study regarding who is under-served and the main factors related to this, rather than the reference back to the USA literature.
Review phrase ‘…to conduct where possible research in the community…’. Might need a comma or just a tweak.
Final sentence refers back to ‘underrepresentation’. For consistency, should this be amended to refer to the under-served populations?

Response: A higher level summary has been added as requested. Thank you for pointing out errors in phrasing.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 29 Sep 2023

Lesley Smith, University of Hull, Hull, England, UK

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14571.r30386

The research article describes the results of a large survey of research professionals' views of engaging individuals who are under represented in health research studies in the UK. This is an important topic and this manuscript adds value to the existing literature on the topic.

It is well written with a clear structure. The methods are transparent and comprehensively reported with the exception of the qualitative analysis which need expanding. A description of how the barriers and enablers were derived and categorised from the themes would enhance the methods.

The interpretation of the following statement needs more cautious interpretation. "Those who consent research participants were more likely to feel partially equipped to address the needs of the under-served compared to those who do not consent (p=0.013), suggesting that face to face contact improves confidence in engaging the under-served."

Causality cannot be inferred about engagement leading to confidence from this cross-sectional survey. Reverse causality cannot be ruled out whereby those that are more confident engage in recruitment more. All you can say is that there was an association, not that it suggests a cause effect relationship.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Survey design and analysis, mixed-methods research, research with underserved groups.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 18 Dec 2023

Dorothy Coe, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, UK

18 Dec 2023

Author Response

Thank you. We have drawn back on our conclusion as per your suggestion.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Thank you. We have drawn back on our conclusion as per your suggestion.
Thank you. We have drawn back on our conclusion as per your suggestion.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 18 Dec 2023

Dorothy Coe, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, UK

18 Dec 2023

Author Response

Thank you. We have drawn back on our conclusion as per your suggestion.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Thank you. We have drawn back on our conclusion as per your suggestion.
Thank you. We have drawn back on our conclusion as per your suggestion.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 26 Jul 2023

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 18 Dec 23	read	read
Version 1 26 Jul 23	read	read

Lesley Smith, University of Hull, Hull, UK
Kelly Beer, Perron Institute for Neurological and Translational Science, Nedlands, Australia; Murdoch University, Murdoch, Australia

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

10 Views

06 Feb 2024 | for Version 2

10 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Thank you very much to the authors for their consideration of the review comments and the subsequent revisions to the article. There are strong improvements to the article resulting from the revisions and enhanced clarity and context, particularly for readers outside of the UK. The article is a great contribution to this field of literature and identifies interesting avenues for future research and understanding to improve equity of access. Thank you for the invitation to review this work.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Clinical Research Nursing, Research Participation, Research Delivery, Practice Standards

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

9 Views

08 Jan 2024 | for Version 2

Lesley Smith, University of Hull, Hull, England, UK

9 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The article has been improved by addressing the comments from peer review and I have no further comments to make.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Survey design and analysis, mixed-methods research, research with underserved groups.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

11 Views

03 Oct 2023 | for Version 1

11 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Consider tense used throughout document (particularly within abstract) and keep consistent.

Abstract

Background

Suggest consistent use of the term ‘participant’, rather than ‘subject’.
Correct ‘effects’ to ‘affects’ (‘…and effects clinician prescribing’).
Rephrase sentence defining under-served to make the relationship between ‘underrepresented’ and ‘under-served’ terms within this study (or within the UK) explicit (i.e. suggest replace ‘thought of’ with ‘defined as’).
Clarify what is meant by ‘Works..’, i.e. replace with ‘Previous literature’ or similar.
Suggest replace ‘illness’ with ‘health’.
Expand sentence regarding survey aim (expand to include what views were being explored).

Methods

Word-count dependent – could consider including target audience/dissemination information within first sentence.

Results

Reference here to previous literature, but it is unclear to the reader whether this refers to one previous study or the general evidence in this field.
Consider wording carefully here – it is a little confusing on first read, as it reads as though the general population were surveyed to identify the groups and factors related to being under-served, but it is important to articulate that this is a reported perception of who is under-served, based on views of research professionals, not a survey of the general population themselves.

Conclusion

References confirmation of USA findings, however this previous research isn’t referenced otherwise within the abstract. If this article was building on USA research or replicating work from the USA, this should be described in the background section. As per comment for ‘Results’, clarification regarding what previous literature is being confirmed would be helpful. If just one previous study is being referenced/validated, this should be explicit. The second sentence also appears to build on findings from a previous study, but these are interesting stand-alone findings (new knowledge) from this study.
Again, ensure that it is clear that the study reports on views of research professionals, not views of the under-served populations themselves.
Last sentence needs to be checked – is there a word missing related to consent? Revise to clarify/correct.

Keywords

These are consistent with the article. Could also use ‘clinical research professional’, ‘clinical research practitioner’, or ‘clinical research nurse’.

Plain language summary

In some sentences the explanatory terms used for simple concepts have increased complexity e.g. ‘…in a questionnaire found on the internet’ could be replaced with ‘…in an online survey’, and ’13 out of 100’ can be replaced with 13%. I would suggest reviewing with lay panel members/consumers, or even utilising AI software that provides ‘plain language’ outputs, to edit this summary and ensure sentences are simple and concise. Ensure the sentence structure clearly identifies the subject (e.g. ‘they’ is used extensively, but it is not always clear who this refers to).
Unclear as to what is meant by carrying out research ‘…in the community’. Suggest rewording for those unfamiliar with health terminology to be explicit that this means research taking place outside of traditional hospital/research facilities.

Introduction

The first sentence should be referenced and this section would benefit from elaboration regarding the status quo. The lack of diversity in clinical research is the main premise that underpins the study, so it would be interesting here to see some recent statistics around clinical research participation and perhaps an example or two from recent literature as to the impact of including only a homogenous group of participants.
Line about NIHR INCLUDE – ‘…involving them directly in producing the definition above.’ Which sentence/definition does this refer to? Reword to clarify meaning and retain flow for the reader.
Consider expanding reference/information regarding the recent work in this area in the USA, as this work is referred to in both the abstract and conclusion.
Reference in next paragraph first sentence to ‘…nature of the concept…’ – what concept and which ‘terms’ does this refer to? Although it will increase repetition, as a reader it would be much easier to be explicit regarding each sentence’s subject to help the reader understand meaning and intention. Particularly within this paragraph, but please consider throughout the article. It becomes clearer with second or third read, but is quite confusing on first read.
When describing how previous works link terms, can you give some examples as well as the descriptors, again to help the reader follow what you are describing? E.g. ‘Many narrow the focus to engagement within a named group and a specific disease, e.g. females underrepresented in heart disease research…’
Last sentence (related to what the survey covered) – ‘what barriers exist..’, does this refer to barriers for participants or barriers to change?
The gap in access/involvement for under-served groups is well described, but I would be interested to read a little more within the introduction about any identified gaps in health professional understanding of barriers/enablers that drove this study to investigate their views. I.e. why is understanding health professionals’ views important to improve equity of access and diversity in clinical research?

Methods

Patient and Public Involvement

It may be appropriate to move the information regarding peer review of the survey (within ‘Survey Development’) to this section, as this constitutes consumer involvement, as meaningful input from the target audience to study design.

Survey development

It would be helpful to expand upon how the literature review was utilised in the survey design, particularly related to determining the 10 factors that impact being under-served that were used in the survey for ranking.

Recruitment and data collection

‘…local clinical research network…’ Needs capitalising?
Include (CRN) in brackets after ‘Clinical Research Network’ as CRN acronym is used further within the paragraph.
I don’t think the example provided regarding the North East and North Cumbria CRN is necessary. The dissemination approach is well described and this is a little confusing with the number of email invites listed just for this area. It would be interesting instead to read an estimate of how many research professionals were reached through the network and perhaps an idea of what kind of roles (e.g. research nurse, AHP, etc).
The questionnaire was described as anonymous, however (optionally) contact details were collected? What was the purpose of the inclusion of contact details and how/what did the study team follow up with for those who provided contact details?

Analysis

Well described and information provided that would allow replication of methods and analysis.

Results

Demographics

Did all 945 complete the survey in full? Or was this the total number of completed surveys? Were there many/any who started the survey but did not complete it?
Could you expand on ‘all components of the NIHR infrastructure and Clinical Specialties…’ for readers who may not be familiar with the NIHR/NHS structure?
Demographic data is well covered, but this data would be nicely represented as an infographics summary rather than in-text. Particularly the geographical data, also to aid those outside the UK who may not be familiar with regions.

Place of work and role

Information is provided on the type of role activities (consenting, identifying participants), but was information also collected on the role of respondents? Or length of time in research role?

Who are the under-served

…in their area’ – Does this refer to geographical area, CRN, or clinical specialism?
Reference to previous literature could come within Discussion, as it’s not expanded here, so is difficult to know which literature this refers to (a specific study, or the current body of knowledge?).
Repetition of text within Table 1 descriptor and results text.

What impacts on being under-served

Repetition of text within Figure 1 descriptor and results text
Suggest describing the 10 responses to be ranked.

Addressing the needs of the under-served

Is there a significance of gender to warrant inclusion of that info within the brackets alongside number of respondees? There may be many other sub-group analyses (age, role, region, specialism) that would be relevant to include if this was part of the research question(s), but if there were not specific sub-group analyses done on these questions by gender or any other demographic, I would suggest removing the gender breakdown info to make it easier to read.
Perhaps consider capitalising the response options to make it easier for the reader to follow which result each sentence is reporting. For example, within the sentence, ‘A significant difference is also seen in those who identify research participants who felt partially equipped….’, it is not clear on first read that the result being reported in this sentence relates to number of respondees identifying as ‘Partially Equipped’, rather than reporting on those who identify research participants.
Correct to ‘receiving consent’ (rather than ‘taking consent’). Again in the following sentence, rephrase to ‘receiving consent’.

Qualitative analysis

Enablers and Barriers

May be helpful to firstly introduce/summarise the main themes found in each sub-section before expanding on each.
An overview/summary table with the themes identified across Enablers and Barriers could work well?
There is some cross-over here with content that could easily fit within the Discussion section or is repeated there.
For consistency, include sub-group analysis for barriers, to report on most cited barriers for primary care and mental health groups.

Further information and training

The final paragraph to this section could fit within the Discussion, or even Conclusion, as the findings are nicely summarised here.

Discussion

Provides a nice summary and delve into the results, with interesting observations drawn and areas for further research identified.
Do draw the reader back to the context of the study to acknowledge limitations – this study is reporting on perceived factors that impact being under-served from the perspective of research professionals, not based on surveying the general population or under-served populations themselves.

Conclusion

I would prefer a high level summary of the findings from this study regarding who is under-served and the main factors related to this, rather than the reference back to the USA literature.
Review phrase ‘…to conduct where possible research in the community…’. Might need a comma or just a tweak.
Final sentence refers back to ‘underrepresentation’. For consistency, should this be amended to refer to the under-served populations?

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Clinical Research Nursing, Research Participation, Research Delivery, Practice Standards

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

18 Dec 2023

Dorothy Coe, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, UK

Response: Thank you for the detailed review of our work. We have discussed the comments made and revised in light of our discussions.

Style: Consider tense used throughout document (particularly within abstract) and keep consistent.

Response: Reviewed as requested.

Abstract:
Background
Suggest consistent use of the term ‘participant’, rather than ‘subject’.
Correct ‘effects’ to ‘affects’ (‘…and effects clinician prescribing’).
Rephrase sentence defining under-served to make the relationship between ‘underrepresented’ and ‘under-served’ terms within this study (or within the UK) explicit (i.e. suggest replace ‘thought of’ with ‘defined as’).
Clarify what is meant by ‘Works..’, i.e. replace with ‘Previous literature’ or similar.
Suggest replace ‘illness’ with ‘health’.
Expand sentence regarding survey aim (expand to include what views were being explored).
Methods
Word-count dependent – could consider including target audience/dissemination information within first sentence.
Results
Reference here to previous literature, but it is unclear to the reader whether this refers to one previous study or the general evidence in this field.
Consider wording carefully here – it is a little confusing on first read, as it reads as though the general population were surveyed to identify the groups and factors related to being under-served, but it is important to articulate that this is a reported perception of who is under-served, based on views of research professionals, not a survey of the general population themselves.
Conclusion
References confirmation of USA findings, however this previous research isn’t referenced otherwise within the abstract. If this article was building on USA research or replicating work from the USA, this should be described in the background section. As per comment for ‘Results’, clarification regarding what previous literature is being confirmed would be helpful. If just one previous study is being referenced/validated, this should be explicit. The second sentence also appears to build on findings from a previous study, but these are interesting stand-alone findings (new knowledge) from this study.
Again, ensure that it is clear that the study reports on views of research professionals, not views of the under-served populations themselves.
Last sentence needs to be checked – is there a word missing related to consent? Revise to clarify/correct.

Response: A new abstract as been produced taking into account the above comments and the allowed word count.

Keywords:
These are consistent with the article. Could also use ‘clinical research professional’, ‘clinical research practitioner’, or ‘clinical research nurse’.

Response: These terms are not consistent with our work as participants included non-clinical research staff.

Plain language summary:
In some sentences the explanatory terms used for simple concepts have increased complexity e.g. ‘…in a questionnaire found on the internet’ could be replaced with ‘…in an online survey’, and ’13 out of 100’ can be replaced with 13%. I would suggest reviewing with lay panel members/consumers, or even utilising AI software that provides ‘plain language’ outputs, to edit this summary and ensure sentences are simple and concise. Ensure the sentence structure clearly identifies the subject (e.g. ‘they’ is used extensively, but it is not always clear who this refers to).
Unclear as to what is meant by carrying out research ‘…in the community’. Suggest rewording for those unfamiliar with health terminology to be explicit that this means research taking place outside of traditional hospital/research facilities.

Response: Advice taken as suggested and reviews made in light of comments received.

Introduction:
The first sentence should be referenced and this section would benefit from elaboration regarding the status quo. The lack of diversity in clinical research is the main premise that underpins the study, so it would be interesting here to see some recent statistics around clinical research participation and perhaps an example or two from recent literature as to the impact of including only a homogenous group of participants.
Line about NIHR INCLUDE – ‘…involving them directly in producing the definition above.’ Which sentence/definition does this refer to? Reword to clarify meaning and retain flow for the reader.
Consider expanding reference/information regarding the recent work in this area in the USA, as this work is referred to in both the abstract and conclusion.
Reference in next paragraph first sentence to ‘…nature of the concept…’ – what concept and which ‘terms’ does this refer to? Although it will increase repetition, as a reader it would be much easier to be explicit regarding each sentence’s subject to help the reader understand meaning and intention. Particularly within this paragraph, but please consider throughout the article. It becomes clearer with second or third read, but is quite confusing on first read.
When describing how previous works link terms, can you give some examples as well as the descriptors, again to help the reader follow what you are describing? E.g. ‘Many narrow the focus to engagement within a named group and a specific disease, e.g. females underrepresented in heart disease research…’
Last sentence (related to what the survey covered) – ‘what barriers exist..’, does this refer to barriers for participants or barriers to change?
The gap in access/involvement for under-served groups is well described, but I would be interested to read a little more within the introduction about any identified gaps in health professional understanding of barriers/enablers that drove this study to investigate their views. I.e. why is understanding health professionals’ views important to improve equity of access and diversity in clinical research?

Response: Revised with comments taken into account.

Methods:
Patient and Public Involvement
It may be appropriate to move the information regarding peer review of the survey (within ‘Survey Development’) to this section, as this constitutes consumer involvement, as meaningful input from the target audience to study design.
Survey development
It would be helpful to expand upon how the literature review was utilised in the survey design, particularly related to determining the 10 factors that impact being under-served that were used in the survey for ranking.
Recruitment and data collection
‘…local clinical research network…’ Needs capitalising?
Include (CRN) in brackets after ‘Clinical Research Network’ as CRN acronym is used further within the paragraph.

I don’t think the example provided regarding the North East and North Cumbria CRN is necessary. The dissemination approach is well described and this is a little confusing with the number of email invites listed just for this area. It would be interesting instead to read an estimate of how many research professionals were reached through the network and perhaps an idea of what kind of roles (e.g. research nurse, AHP, etc).

The questionnaire was described as anonymous, however (optionally) contact details were collected? What was the purpose of the inclusion of contact details and how/what did the study team follow up with for those who provided contact details?
Analysis
Well described and information provided that would allow replication of methods and analysis.

Response: PPIE moved as suggested although the Editors may have an alternative suggestion. The example from the NENC CRN was requested by the editors. Granular information on job type (Nurse AHP etc) was not collected. Thank you for pointing out the inaccuracy regarding anonymity. The survey was anonymous. Respondents were invited to leave their contact details for the NIHR under-served programme board. This was to collect 'best practice' examples and was outside of the research project reported. The study staff were not involved in the collection of email addresses or the production of best practice examples.

Results:
Demographics
Did all 945 complete the survey in full? Or was this the total number of completed surveys? Were there many/any who started the survey but did not complete it?
Could you expand on ‘all components of the NIHR infrastructure and Clinical Specialties…’ for readers who may not be familiar with the NIHR/NHS structure?
Demographic data is well covered, but this data would be nicely represented as an infographics summary rather than in-text. Particularly the geographical data, also to aid those outside the UK who may not be familiar with regions.
Place of work and role
Information is provided on the type of role activities (consenting, identifying participants), but was information also collected on the role of respondents? Or length of time in research role?

Who are the under-served…in their area’ – Does this refer to geographical area, CRN, or clinical specialism?

Reference to previous literature could come within Discussion, as it’s not expanded here, so is difficult to know which literature this refers to (a specific study, or the current body of knowledge?).
Repetition of text within Table 1 descriptor and results text.
What impacts on being under-served
Repetition of text within Figure 1 descriptor and results text
Suggest describing the 10 responses to be ranked.
Addressing the needs of the under-served

Is there a significance of gender to warrant inclusion of that info within the brackets alongside number of respondees? There may be many other sub-group analyses (age, role, region, specialism) that would be relevant to include if this was part of the research question(s), but if there were not specific sub-group analyses done on these questions by gender or any other demographic, I would suggest removing the gender breakdown info to make it easier to read.

Perhaps consider capitalising the response options to make it easier for the reader to follow which result each sentence is reporting. For example, within the sentence, ‘A significant difference is also seen in those who identify research participants who felt partially equipped….’, it is not clear on first read that the result being reported in this sentence relates to number of respondees identifying as ‘Partially Equipped’, rather than reporting on those who identify research participants.

Correct to ‘receiving consent’ (rather than ‘taking consent’). Again in the following sentence, rephrase to ‘receiving consent’.
Qualitative analysis
Enablers and Barriers
May be helpful to firstly introduce/summarise the main themes found in each sub-section before expanding on each.

An overview/summary table with the themes identified across Enablers and Barriers could work well?
There is some cross-over here with content that could easily fit within the Discussion section or is repeated there.
For consistency, include sub-group analysis for barriers, to report on most cited barriers for primary care and mental health groups.
Further information and training

The final paragraph to this section could fit within the Discussion, or even Conclusion, as the findings are nicely summarised here.

Response: The respondent interpreted 'in their area'. Repetition, the submission requires tables and figures are discussed within the text, therefore to some extent repetition cannot be avoided. However a formatting error has been corrected which had led to whole paragraphs being repeated. The 10 factors are described within the figure. The inclusion of gender (whether significant or not) was requested by the editors. We feel that additional capitisation detracts from the presentation of the work, but will be guided by the editors. Consent phrasing has be revised as suggested. We feel an overview/summary table in not required and would lead to repetition. Sub-group analysis has been added to the 'further information and training' section. We have chosen to leave the interim conclusions at the end of the results section.

Discussion:
Provides a nice summary and delve into the results, with interesting observations drawn and areas for further research identified.
Do draw the reader back to the context of the study to acknowledge limitations – this study is reporting on perceived factors that impact being under-served from the perspective of research professionals, not based on surveying the general population or under-served populations themselves.

Response: Additions to the limitations section have been added.

Conclusion:
I would prefer a high level summary of the findings from this study regarding who is under-served and the main factors related to this, rather than the reference back to the USA literature.
Review phrase ‘…to conduct where possible research in the community…’. Might need a comma or just a tweak.
Final sentence refers back to ‘underrepresentation’. For consistency, should this be amended to refer to the under-served populations?

Response: A higher level summary has been added as requested. Thank you for pointing out errors in phrasing.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

11 Views

29 Sep 2023 | for Version 1

Lesley Smith, University of Hull, Hull, England, UK

11 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Survey design and analysis, mixed-methods research, research with underserved groups.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. NIHR: Under-served communities. 2023; (accessed 31 Jan 2023). Reference Source

[2] 2. Davis TC, Arnold CL, Mills G, et al.: A Qualitative Study Exploring Barriers and Facilitators of Enrolling Underrepresented Populations in Clinical Trials and Biobanking. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2019; 7: 74. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] 3. Clark LT, Watkins L, Piña IL, et al.: Increasing Diversity in Clinical Trials: Overcoming Critical Barriers. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2019; 44(5): 148–172. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Huang B, De Vore D, Chirinos C, et al.: Strategies for recruitment and retention of underrepresented populations with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for a clinical trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19(1): 39. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] 5. Sedrak MS, Freedman RA, Cohen HJ, et al.: Older adult participation in cancer clinical trials: A systematic review of barriers and interventions. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021; 71(1): 78–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] 6. Borno HT, Zhang S, Gomez S: COVID-19 disparities: An urgent call for race reporting and representation in clinical research. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2020; 19: 100630. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[7] 7. INCLUDE: INCLUDE Better healthcare through more inclusive research. n.d. Reference Source

[8] 8. NIHR INVOLVE: NIHR INVOLVE. 2019; (accessed 20 Aug 2019). Reference Source

[9] 9. All party parlimentary group on medical research: Health Disparities: Why Medical Reserach is a Crucial Tool for Change. 2023; (accessed 4 May 2023). Reference Source

[10] 10. Liu J, Gutierrez E, Tiwari A, et al.: Strategies to Improve Participation of Older Adults in Cancer Research. J Clin Med. 2020; 9(5): 1571. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[11] 11. Farooqi A, Raghavan R, Wilson A, et al.: Toolkit for: Increasing participation of Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups in health and socail care research. NIHR Applied Research Collaboration North East and North Cumbria Resources. 2018; (accessed 31 Aug 2021). Reference Source

[12] 12. Prasanna A, Miller HN, Wu Y, et al.: Recruitment of Black Adults into Cardiovascular Disease Trials. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021; 10(17): e021108. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[13] 13. Vuong I, Wright J, Nolan MB, et al.: Overcoming Barriers: Evidence-Based Strategies to Increase Enrollment of Underrepresented Populations in Cancer Therapeutic Clinical Trials—a Narrative Review. J Canc Educ. 2020; 35(5): 841–849. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Nipp RD, Hong K, Paskett ED: Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrollment. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2019; 39: 105–114. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Willis A, Isaacs T, Khunti K: Improving diversity in research and trial participation: the challenges of language. Lancet Public Health. 2021; 6(7): e445–e446. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Dobkin RD, Amondikar N, Kopil C, et al.: Innovative Recruitment Strategies to Increase Diversity of Participation in Parkinson’s Disease Research: The Fox Insight Cohort Experience. J Parkinsons Dis. 2020; 10(2): 665–675. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] 17. Stedman A, Taylor B, Erard M, et al.: Are Children Severely Affected by Autism Spectrum Disorder Underrepresented in Treatment Studies? An Analysis of the Literature. J Autism Dev Disord. 2019; 49(4): 1378–1390. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[18] 18. Drenkard C, Easley K, Bao G, et al.: Overcoming barriers to recruitment and retention of African-American women with SLE in behavioural interventions: lessons learnt from the WELL study. Lupus Sci Med. 2020; 7(1): e000391. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[19] 19. Pratap A, Renn BN, Volponi J, et al.: Using Mobile Apps to Assess and Treat Depression in Hispanic and Latino Populations: Fully Remote Randomized Clinical Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2018; 20(8): e10130. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[20] 20. Nemanich S, Gillick BT, Sukal-Moulton T, et al.: Can Technology Improve Participation From Underserved Children and Families In Rehabilitation Research? WMJ. 2022; 121(3): 174–176. PubMed Abstract

[21] 21. Kraft SA, Doerr M: Engaging populations underrepresented in research through novel approaches to consent. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2018; 178(1): 75–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[22] 22. Harrington C, Erete S, Piper AM: Deconstructing Community-Based Collaborative Design: Towards More Equitable Participatory Design Engagements. Proc ACM Hum-Comput Interact. 2019; 3: 1–25. Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Hoyo V, Shah RC, Dave G, et al.: Integrating special and underserved populations in translational research: Environmental scan of adaptive capacity and preparedness of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program hubs. J Clin Transl Sci. 2022; 6(1): e89. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[24] 24. Care Quality Comission: A new strategy for changing the world of health and social care - CQC’s strategy from 2021. About us. 2022; (accessed 2 Feb 2023). Reference Source

[25] 25. DeCaro R, O’Connor MK, DiTerlizzi C, et al.: Educating students while recruiting underrepresented populations for Alzheimer’s disease research: the Student Ambassador Program. BMC Med Educ. 2022; 22(1): 707. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[26] 26. Lunn MR, Capriotti MR, Flentje A, et al.: Using mobile technology to engage sexual and gender minorities in clinical research. PLoS One. 2019; 14(5): e0216282. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] 27. Bardach SH, Yarbrough M, Walker C, et al.: Insights From African American Older Adults on Brain Health Research Engagement: “Need to See the Need”. J Appl Gerontol. 2021; 40(2): 201–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[28] 28. Amorrortu RP, Arevalo M, Vernon SW, et al.: Recruitment of racial and ethnic minorities to clinical trials conducted within specialty clinics: an intervention mapping approach. Trials. 2018; 19(1): 115. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[29] 29. Shepherd V, Wood F, Griffith R, et al.: Protection by exclusion? The (lack of) inclusion of adults who lack capacity to consent to research in clinical trials in the UK. Trials. 2019; 20(1): 474. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[30] 30. Chastian DB, Osae SP, Henao-Martínez AF, et al.: Racial Disproportionality in Covid Clinical Trials. N Engl J Med. 2020; 383(9): e59. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. SmartSurvey. 2022; (accessed 2 Sep 2023). Reference Source

[32] 32. Coe D, Bigirumurame T, Burgess M, et al.: Enablers and barriers to engaging under-served groups in research: Survey of the United Kingdom research professional’s views. [Dataset], 2023. http://www.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/F5KNW

[33] 33. The R Foundation: The R Project for Staatistical Computing. r-project.org. 2022; (accessed 3 Jul 2023). Reference Source

[34] 34. Creswell J: Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design choosing Among Five Approaches. 2nd ed. London:: Sage, 2007. Reference Source

[35] 35. Graneheim UH, Lindgren BM, Lundman B: Methodological Challenges in Qualitative Content Analysis: A discussion Paper. Nurse Educ Today. 2017; 56: 29–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[36] 36. Grun B, Hornick K: R package version 0.2-13. topicmodels: Topic Models. 2022; (accessed 3 Jul 2023). Reference Source

[37] 37. Silge J, Robinson D: tidytext: Text Mining and Analysis Using Tidy Data Principles in R. JOSS. 2016; 1(3): 37. Publisher Full Text

[38] 38. Sharma A, Minh Duc NT, Luu Lam Thang T, et al.: A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS). J Gen Intern Med. 2021; 36(10): 3179–3187. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[39] 39. STROBE. 2023. Reference Source

[40] 40. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, et al.: Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations. Acad Med. 2014; 89(9): 1245–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[41] 41. GOV.UK. NHS workforce: NHS workforce Ethnicity facts and figures. 2020; (accessed 22 Jan 2023). Reference Source

[42] 42. Croff R, Gowen LK, Lindauer A, et al.: Including older rural adults in research: Practical guidance for addressing the NIH Inclusion Across the Lifespan policy. J Clin Trans Sci. 2020; 4(5): 431–436. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[43] 43. Danila MI, Allison JJ, Goins KV, et al.: Development of a multi-component intervention to promote participation of Black and Latinx individuals in biomedical research. J Clin Trans Sci. 2021; 5(1): e134. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[44] 44. GOV.UK: Writing about ethnicity. Ethnicity facts and. 2021; (accessed 20 Mar 2023). Reference Source

[45] 45. NHS Confederation: Addressing vaccine hesitency in differnt ethnic communities. Publications, 2022; (accessed 3 Feb 2023). Reference Source

[46] 46. Black Women in Health (BWIH): COVID-19 vaccine hesitency - debunking the myths using a community engagement approach underpinned by NICE guidance. NICE Guidance, 2021; (accessed 3 Feb 2023). Reference Source

[47] 47. Falla AM, Veldhuijzen IK, Ahmad AA, et al.: Language support for linguistic minority chronic hepatitis B/C patients: an exploratory study of availability and clinicians’ perceptions of language barriers in six European countries. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017; 17(1): 150. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[48] 48. Plumridge G, Redwood S, Greenfield S, et al.: Involving interpreters in research studies. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2012; 17(3): 190–2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[49] 49. Feiring E, Westdahl S: Factors influencing the use of video interpretation compared to in-person interpretation in hospitals: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020; 20(1): 856. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[50] 50. GOV.UK: Language interpreting and translation: migrant health guide. Advice and guidance on the health needs of migrant patients for healthcare practitioners. Migrant Health. 2021; (accessed 2 Dec 2023). Reference Source

[51] 51. Winter SS, Page-Reeves JM, Page KA, et al.: Inclusion of special populations in clinical research: important considerations and guidelines. J Clin Transl Res. 2018; 4(1): 56–69. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[52] 52. Health Research Authority: NHS Health Research Authority Planning and improving research. Mental Capacity Act. 2021. Reference Source

[53] 53. Department of Health & Social Care: Research Reset. The future of UK Clinical Reserach Delivery. 2023; (accessed 20 Mar 2023). Reference Source

Enablers and barriers to engaging under-served groups in research: Survey of the United Kingdom research professional’s views

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Plain language summary

Introduction

Methods

Patient and Public Involvement

Ethics and consent

Survey development

Recruitment and data collection

Analysis

Reflexivity

Results

Demographics

Place of work and role

Who are the under-served?

Table 1. Who are the under-served in your area?

What impacts on being under-served?

Figure 1. Ranking of 10 factors on degree of impact on being under-served.

Addressing the needs of the under-served

Qualitative analysis

Enablers

Barriers

Further information and training

Discussion

Conclusion

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Reporting guidelines

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you an NIHR-funded researcher?

Thank you!