Time to STEP UP: methods and findings from the development of guidance to help researchers design inclusive clinical trials

Abstract Background It is important to design clinical trials to include all those who may benefit from the intervention being tested. Several frameworks have been developed to help researchers think about the barriers to inclusion of particular under-served groups when designing a trial, but there is a lack of practical guidance on how to implement these frameworks. This paper describes the ACCESS project, the findings from each phase of the project and the guidance we developed (STEP UP) on how to design more inclusive trials. Methods Development of the STEP UP guidance had five phases: (1) Scoping literature review, (2) ‘roundtable’ discussion meetings, (3) redesign of trials, (4) interviews and (5) guidance document development, with input from public contributors and the ACCESS team. Results Over 40 experts contributed to the ACCESS project—patients and the public, clinicians, NHS research staff, trialists and other academics. The scoping review identified several strategies being used to improve inclusion, mostly around recruitment settings, but there was little evaluation of these strategies. The ‘roundtable’ discussions identified additional strategies being used across the UK and Ireland to improve inclusion, which were grouped into: Communication, Community engagement, Recruitment sites, Patient information, Flexibility, Recruitment settings, Consent process, Monitoring, Training for researchers and Incentives. These strategies were used to redesign three existing trials by applying one of the three INCLUDE frameworks (ethnicity, socioeconomic disadvantage, impaired capacity to consent) to one trial each, to produce the key recommendations for the guidance. Issues around implementation were explored in stakeholder interviews and key facilitators were identified: funders requesting information on inclusion, having the time and funding to implement strategies, dedicated staff, flexibility in trial protocols, and considering inclusion of under-served groups at the design stages. The STEP UP guidance is freely available at http://step-up-clinical-trials.co.uk . Conclusion Researchers should consider inclusivity to shape initial trial design decisions. Trial teams and funders need to ensure that trials are given both the resources and time needed to implement the STEP UP guidance and increase the opportunities to recruit a diverse population.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2024-10-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02342-y
Citations
13
Primary Topic
Ethics in Clinical Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.06

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Time to STEP UP: methods and findings from the development of guidance to help researchers design inclusive clinical trials

Talia Isaacs, Frances Shiely, Cindy Cooper, Heidi Green et al.
13 citations
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Ethics in Clinical Research
7.06
article

Time to STEP UP: methods and findings from the development of guidance to help researchers design inclusive clinical trials

Talia Isaacs, Frances Shiely, Cindy Cooper, Heidi Green, Andrew Willis, Katie Biggs, J. Athene Lane, Shaun P. Treweek, Katie Hullock, Victoria Shepherd, Caroline Dix
article en
13 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background It is important to design clinical trials to include all those who may benefit from the intervention being tested. Several frameworks have been developed to help researchers think about the barriers to inclusion of particular under-served groups when designing a trial, but there is a lack of practical guidance on how to implement these frameworks. This paper describes the ACCESS project, the findings from each phase of the project and the guidance we developed (STEP UP) on how to design more inclusive trials. Methods Development of the STEP UP guidance had five phases: (1) Scoping literature review, (2) ‘roundtable’ discussion meetings, (3) redesign of trials, (4) interviews and (5) guidance document development, with input from public contributors and the ACCESS team. Results Over 40 experts contributed to the ACCESS project—patients and the public, clinicians, NHS research staff, trialists and other academics. The scoping review identified several strategies being used to improve inclusion, mostly around recruitment settings, but there was little evaluation of these strategies. The ‘roundtable’ discussions identified additional strategies being used across the UK and Ireland to improve inclusion, which were grouped into: Communication, Community engagement, Recruitment sites, Patient information, Flexibility, Recruitment settings, Consent process, Monitoring, Training for researchers and Incentives. These strategies were used to redesign three existing trials by applying one of the three INCLUDE frameworks (ethnicity, socioeconomic disadvantage, impaired capacity to consent) to one trial each, to produce the key recommendations for the guidance. Issues around implementation were explored in stakeholder interviews and key facilitators were identified: funders requesting information on inclusion, having the time and funding to implement strategies, dedicated staff, flexibility in trial protocols, and considering inclusion of under-served groups at the design stages. The STEP UP guidance is freely available at http://step-up-clinical-trials.co.uk . Conclusion Researchers should consider inclusivity to shape initial trial design decisions. Trial teams and funders need to ensure that trials are given both the resources and time needed to implement the STEP UP guidance and increase the opportunities to recruit a diverse population.

BMC Medical Research MethodologyVol. 24(1)
University of Aberdeen (GB), University College Cork (IE), University of Bristol (GB), Faculty (United Kingdom) (GB), University College London (GB), Cardiff University (GB), University of Sheffield (GB)
National Institute for Health and Care Research, Department of Health and Social Care
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Ethics in Clinical Research
7.06
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.