Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Mar 12;21(1):259.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-4197-3.

Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators

Rebecca Sheridan  1 , Jacqueline Martin-Kerry  1 , Joanna Hudson  2 , Adwoa Parker  1 , Peter Bower  3 , Peter Knapp  4
Affiliations
Review

Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators

Rebecca Sheridan et al. Trials. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: 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.

Methods: 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).

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

Keywords: Consent; Overview; Psychosocial; Recruitment; Research participation; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Adwoa Parker and Peter Bower are authors on one of the included systematic reviews. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. McDonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA, Grant AM, Cook JA, et al. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2006;7(1):9. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-7-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Briel M, Olu KK, von Elm E, Kasenda B, Alturki R, Agarwal A, et al. A systematic review of discontinued trials suggested that most reasons for recruitment failure were preventable. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;1(80):8–15. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.07.016. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Walters SJ, Bonacho dos Anjos Henriques-Cadby I, Bortolami O, Flight L, Hind D, Jacques RM, et al. Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme. BMJ Open. 2017;7(3):e015276. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015276. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Treweek S, Lockhart P, Pitkethly M, Cook JA, Kjeldstrom M, Johansen M, et al. Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2013;3(2):e002360. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002360. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Treweek S, Mitchell E, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Kjeldstrøm M, Taskila T, Johansen M, Sullivan F, Wilson S, Jackson C, Jones R. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(1):MR000013. 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub4. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources