Cargando…
Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators
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 rec...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7069042/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32164790 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4197-3 |
_version_ | 1783505699400056832 |
---|---|
author | Sheridan, Rebecca Martin-Kerry, Jacqueline Hudson, Joanna Parker, Adwoa Bower, Peter Knapp, Peter |
author_facet | Sheridan, Rebecca Martin-Kerry, Jacqueline Hudson, Joanna Parker, Adwoa Bower, Peter Knapp, Peter |
author_sort | Sheridan, Rebecca |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7069042 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70690422020-03-18 Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators Sheridan, Rebecca Martin-Kerry, Jacqueline Hudson, Joanna Parker, Adwoa Bower, Peter Knapp, Peter Trials Research 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. BioMed Central 2020-03-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7069042/ /pubmed/32164790 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4197-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Sheridan, Rebecca Martin-Kerry, Jacqueline Hudson, Joanna Parker, Adwoa Bower, Peter Knapp, Peter Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators |
title | Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators |
title_full | Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators |
title_fullStr | Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators |
title_full_unstemmed | Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators |
title_short | Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators |
title_sort | why do patients take part in research? an overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7069042/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32164790 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4197-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sheridanrebecca whydopatientstakepartinresearchanoverviewofsystematicreviewsofpsychosocialbarriersandfacilitators AT martinkerryjacqueline whydopatientstakepartinresearchanoverviewofsystematicreviewsofpsychosocialbarriersandfacilitators AT hudsonjoanna whydopatientstakepartinresearchanoverviewofsystematicreviewsofpsychosocialbarriersandfacilitators AT parkeradwoa whydopatientstakepartinresearchanoverviewofsystematicreviewsofpsychosocialbarriersandfacilitators AT bowerpeter whydopatientstakepartinresearchanoverviewofsystematicreviewsofpsychosocialbarriersandfacilitators AT knapppeter whydopatientstakepartinresearchanoverviewofsystematicreviewsofpsychosocialbarriersandfacilitators |