Peter Knapp, Peter Bower, Amber Lidster, Hugh O'Hare, Laura Ferreira Sol, Su Golder, Chris Keyworth, Adwoa Parker, Rebecca Sheridan
{"title":"病人为什么要参加研究?关于社会心理障碍和促进者的系统综述的最新综述。","authors":"Peter Knapp, Peter Bower, Amber Lidster, Hugh O'Hare, Laura Ferreira Sol, Su Golder, Chris Keyworth, Adwoa Parker, Rebecca Sheridan","doi":"10.1186/s13063-025-08850-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Efficient, equitable health research depends on understanding why people decide to take part. The aims of this overview were to update the version published in 2020, identifying psychosocial influences on participation and mapping them to recruitment research and psychological theory.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches were undertaken in February 2024. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods systematic reviews were identified, without language or date limits. Methodological quality was rated using AMSTAR-2, and low-quality reviews were excluded. Barriers and facilitators were identified inductively and mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and COM-B model, and to empirical recruitment research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The update included 70 reviews, including 44 new reviews, covering a breadth of populations and settings, and drawing on 1940 primary studies (1428 unique). We identified 15 facilitators, most commonly: altruism, potential for personal benefit and trust. Incentives and convenient, low-burden research were also facilitators. Another 10 facilitators were new to this update. There were 16 barriers, most commonly: perceived risk, practical difficulties, and distrust of researchers. Many barriers applied to specific designs, particularly randomised trials. Factors that were barriers or facilitators include the influence of others and information quality. Barriers and facilitators were coded to the Motivation and Opportunity components of the TDF, particularly knowledge and social influences; only two factors were coded to a Capability. Psychosocial influences and empirical recruitment research had some overlap, but some barriers and facilitators had not been evaluated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Common barriers and facilitators to research participation were identified, some new to this update, which could be addressed through targeted recruitment strategies to increase the efficiency and generalisability of primary research. Factors affecting participation are not only personal; they are also normative and social. The priorities are to change the ways we recruit to research (perhaps tested in SWATs) and identify barriers and facilitators in areas not well covered in current research.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42017062738. Registered on April 2017.</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":"26 1","pages":"174"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why do patients take part in research? An updated overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators.\",\"authors\":\"Peter Knapp, Peter Bower, Amber Lidster, Hugh O'Hare, Laura Ferreira Sol, Su Golder, Chris Keyworth, Adwoa Parker, Rebecca Sheridan\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13063-025-08850-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Efficient, equitable health research depends on understanding why people decide to take part. The aims of this overview were to update the version published in 2020, identifying psychosocial influences on participation and mapping them to recruitment research and psychological theory.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches were undertaken in February 2024. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods systematic reviews were identified, without language or date limits. Methodological quality was rated using AMSTAR-2, and low-quality reviews were excluded. Barriers and facilitators were identified inductively and mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and COM-B model, and to empirical recruitment research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The update included 70 reviews, including 44 new reviews, covering a breadth of populations and settings, and drawing on 1940 primary studies (1428 unique). We identified 15 facilitators, most commonly: altruism, potential for personal benefit and trust. Incentives and convenient, low-burden research were also facilitators. Another 10 facilitators were new to this update. There were 16 barriers, most commonly: perceived risk, practical difficulties, and distrust of researchers. Many barriers applied to specific designs, particularly randomised trials. Factors that were barriers or facilitators include the influence of others and information quality. Barriers and facilitators were coded to the Motivation and Opportunity components of the TDF, particularly knowledge and social influences; only two factors were coded to a Capability. Psychosocial influences and empirical recruitment research had some overlap, but some barriers and facilitators had not been evaluated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Common barriers and facilitators to research participation were identified, some new to this update, which could be addressed through targeted recruitment strategies to increase the efficiency and generalisability of primary research. Factors affecting participation are not only personal; they are also normative and social. The priorities are to change the ways we recruit to research (perhaps tested in SWATs) and identify barriers and facilitators in areas not well covered in current research.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42017062738. Registered on April 2017.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trials\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"174\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-025-08850-6\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-025-08850-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Why do patients take part in research? An updated overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators.
Background: Efficient, equitable health research depends on understanding why people decide to take part. The aims of this overview were to update the version published in 2020, identifying psychosocial influences on participation and mapping them to recruitment research and psychological theory.
Methods: Searches were undertaken in February 2024. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods systematic reviews were identified, without language or date limits. Methodological quality was rated using AMSTAR-2, and low-quality reviews were excluded. Barriers and facilitators were identified inductively and mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and COM-B model, and to empirical recruitment research.
Results: The update included 70 reviews, including 44 new reviews, covering a breadth of populations and settings, and drawing on 1940 primary studies (1428 unique). We identified 15 facilitators, most commonly: altruism, potential for personal benefit and trust. Incentives and convenient, low-burden research were also facilitators. Another 10 facilitators were new to this update. There were 16 barriers, most commonly: perceived risk, practical difficulties, and distrust of researchers. Many barriers applied to specific designs, particularly randomised trials. Factors that were barriers or facilitators include the influence of others and information quality. Barriers and facilitators were coded to the Motivation and Opportunity components of the TDF, particularly knowledge and social influences; only two factors were coded to a Capability. Psychosocial influences and empirical recruitment research had some overlap, but some barriers and facilitators had not been evaluated.
Conclusions: Common barriers and facilitators to research participation were identified, some new to this update, which could be addressed through targeted recruitment strategies to increase the efficiency and generalisability of primary research. Factors affecting participation are not only personal; they are also normative and social. The priorities are to change the ways we recruit to research (perhaps tested in SWATs) and identify barriers and facilitators in areas not well covered in current research.
Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42017062738. Registered on April 2017.
期刊介绍:
Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that will encompass all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials. Trials will experiment with, and then refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these will be included). We believe this represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials. Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.