Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators
Open Access
- 12 March 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Trials
- Vol. 21 (1), 1-18
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4197-3
Abstract
Understanding why people take part in health research is critical to improve research efficiency and generalisability. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews was to identify psychosocial determinants of research participation and map them to psychological theory and empirical recruitment research, to identify effective strategies to increase research participation. Qualitative and quantitative systematic reviews were systematically identified. No date or language limits were applied. Two reviewers independently selected reviews. Methodological quality was rated using AMSTAR, and poor-quality reviews (scoring 0–3) were excluded. Barriers and facilitators were coded to psychological theory (Theoretical Domains Framework) and empirical recruitment research (recruitment interventions that had been subjected to randomised controlled trial evaluation). We included 26 systematic reviews (429 unique primary studies), covering a wide range of patient populations and health settings. We identified five groups of facilitators, of which three were dominant (potential for personal benefit, altruism, trust) and appear to be relevant across research setting and design. We identified nine groups of barriers, which were more dependent on the particular study (context, population, design). Two determinants (participant information, social influences) were found to be both barriers and facilitators. Barriers and facilitators could be coded to the Motivation and Opportunity components of the Theoretical Domains Framework; only one was coded to a Capability component. There was some overlap between psychosocial determinants and empirical recruitment research, but some barriers and facilitators had not been tested at all. Identifying effective recruitment strategies could increase the efficiency and generalisability of primary research. We identified a number of barriers and facilitators that could be addressed by researchers. There is a need for more research to identify effective recruitment strategies that draw on the psychosocial facilitators and barriers identified in this overview.This publication has 55 references indexed in Scilit:
- Parents’ Agendas in Paediatric Clinical Trial Recruitment Are Different from Researchers’ and Often Remain Unvoiced: A Qualitative StudyPLOS ONE, 2013
- Motivators to Participation in Actual HIV Vaccine TrialsAIDS and Behavior, 2013
- Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysisBMJ Open, 2013
- Willingness to Participate in Clinical Trials among Patients of Chinese Heritage: A Meta-SynthesisPLOS ONE, 2013
- Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation researchImplementation Science, 2012
- The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventionsImplementation Science, 2011
- Strengthening evaluation and implementation by specifying components of behaviour change interventions: a study protocolImplementation Science, 2011
- Barriers to participation in mental health research: are there specific gender, ethnicity and age related barriers?BMC Psychiatry, 2010
- Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trialsPublished by Wiley ,2010
- Strategies to improve recruitment to research studiesPublished by Wiley ,2007