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.

No abstract

BackgroundThe 2-week-wait urgent referral policy in the UK has sought to improve cancer outcomes by accelerating diagnosis and treatment. However, around 5–7% of symptomatic referred patients cancel or do not attend their hospital appointment. While subsequent cancer diagnosis was less likely in non-attenders, those with a diagnosis had worse early mortality outcomes.AimTo examine how interpersonal, communication, social, and organisational factors influence a patient’s non-attendance.Design and settingQualitative study in GP practices in one Northern English city.MethodIn-depth, individual interviews were undertaken face-to-face or by telephone between December 2016 and May 2018, followed by thematic framework analysis.ResultsIn this study 21 GPs, and 24 patients who did not attend or had cancelled their appointment were interviewed, deriving a range of potential explanations for non-attendance, including: system flaws; GP difficulties with booking appointments; patient difficulties with navigating the appointment system, particularly older patients and those from more deprived areas; patients leading ‘difficult lives’; and patients’ expectations of the referral, informed by their beliefs, circumstances, priorities, and the perceived prognosis. GPs recognised the importance of communication with the patient, particularly the need to tailor communication to perceived patient understanding and anxiety. GPs and practices varied in their responses to patient non-attendance, influenced by time pressures and perceptions of patient responsibility.ConclusionFailure to be seen within 2 weeks of urgent referral resulted from a number of patient and provider factors. The urgent referral process in general practice and cancer services should accommodate patient perceptions and responses, facilitate referral and attendance, and enable responses to patient non-attendance.

ObjectivesTo understand stakeholders’ views regarding the content and design of paediatric clinical trial multimedia websites. To describe how this knowledge informed the development of the multimedia websites.DesignQualitative study comprising two rounds of interviews or focus groups, with thematic analysis of interview transcripts.ParticipantsSixty-two people (21 children and young people with long-term health conditions, 24 parents and 17 professionals).SettingOne UK children’s hospital and one UK Young Persons’ Advisory Group.ResultsWhen asked what was important in deciding whether to join a trial, children, young people and parents prioritised information about what participation would involve, what the trial was testing, potential benefits and risks of participation and knowing they could leave the trial if they later changed their minds. Young people and parents trusted trial teams to follow regulatory and quality requirements and therefore did not think such information was a priority for the websites, although logos of trusted organisations could lend credibility. Professionals largely concurred with these views. Children and young people advised on the importance of designing the multimedia website to ensure its appearance, tone and wording suited the intended audience and on using animated characters to facilitate children’s engagement.ConclusionsOur study provides insights into the information that families value when deciding about healthcare trial participation. It provides guidance on the design of information resources to appeal to children and young people, while also being acceptable to parents and professionals who are often gatekeepers of children’s access to information. Our findings will be of use to others developing similar multimedia websites. We report specific information needs and new visual preferences that are not usually addressed in printed trial information. Our work illustrates what qualitative research and participatory design practices can contribute to the development of information resources more generally.Trial registration numberISRCTN73136092; Pre-results.

BackgroundRandomised controlled trials are widely established as the best method for testing health interventions whilst minimising bias. However, recruitment and subsequent retention of children and adolescents in healthcare trials is challenging. Participant information sheets are often lengthy and difficult to read and understand. Presenting key information using multimedia may help to overcome these limitations and better support young people and their parents in deciding whether to participate in a clinical trial.MethodsThe TRECA (TRials Engagement in Children and Adolescents) study has two phases. The first phase involves a qualitative study with children and adolescents and their parents to inform the development of multimedia information resources and iterative user testing to refine the resources. The second phase will embed the use of the multimedia information resources into six host trials in the United Kingdom. Patients and parents approached to participate in the host trials will be randomly allocated to either use the multimedia information resource in conjunction with standard participant information sheets, the multimedia information resource alone, or the standard participant information sheets alone. The primary outcome will be the effect of the multimedia information resources on recruitment into trials. Other outcomes measured include the effect of multimedia information resources on retention of participants into the host trials and the impact on family members’ decision-making processes, when compared to standard participant information sheets alone.DiscussionThis study will inform whether multimedia information resources, when developed using participatory design principles, are able to increase recruitment and retention of children and adolescents into trials. There is also the potential for patients to make better informed decisions through the use of multimedia information resources. The multimedia information resources also have the potential to assist with providing information on other healthcare decisions outside of clinical trials.Trial registrationISRCTN registry: ISRCTN73136092 (doi:10.1186/ISRCTN73136092). Registered on 24 August 2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1962-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.