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。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Trials Pub Date : 2025-05-27 DOI:10.1186/s13063-025-08850-6
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:有效、公平的卫生研究取决于理解人们决定参与的原因。本综述的目的是更新2020年发布的版本,确定对参与的社会心理影响,并将其与招聘研究和心理学理论联系起来。方法:于2024年2月进行检索。确定了定性、定量和混合方法的系统评价,没有语言或日期限制。采用AMSTAR-2评价方法学质量,排除低质量评价。通过归纳识别障碍和促进因素,并将其映射到理论领域框架(TDF)和COM-B模型以及实证招聘研究中。结果:更新包括70篇综述,其中包括44篇新综述,涵盖了广泛的人群和环境,并借鉴了1940项主要研究(1428项独特研究)。我们确定了15个促进因素,最常见的是:利他主义、个人利益的潜力和信任。激励措施和方便、低负担的研究也是促进因素。另有10个协调员是本次更新的新成员。有16个障碍,最常见的是:感知风险、实际困难和对研究人员的不信任。许多障碍适用于特定的设计,特别是随机试验。障碍或促进因素包括他人的影响和信息质量。障碍和促进因素被编入技术发展基金的动机和机会部分,特别是知识和社会影响;只有两个因素被编码到Capability中。心理社会影响和经验招聘研究有一些重叠,但一些障碍和促进因素尚未得到评估。结论:确定了参与研究的常见障碍和促进因素,其中一些是本次更新的新内容,可以通过有针对性的招聘策略来解决,以提高初级研究的效率和普遍性。影响参与的因素不仅仅是个人的;它们也是规范性和社会性的。优先考虑的是改变我们招募研究人员的方式(可能在swat中进行测试),并确定当前研究中未充分涵盖的领域的障碍和促进因素。试验注册号:PROSPERO CRD42017062738。2017年4月注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Trials
Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
966
审稿时长
6 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信