SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Health Services Research and Policy / 2026 / Volume: 11 Issue: 2

FACTORS INFLUENCING PATIENT RECRUITMENT INTO HEALTHCARE RESEARCH: A QUALITATIVE NARRATIVE REVIEW

Emma Whitby(The University of Liverpool)0009-0008-4354-4936
Rebecca Rylance-Graham(The University of Liverpool)0000-0002-0437-6246
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-24
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that a paradigm shift is required, moving beyond the repeated identification of barriers and facilitators affecting research participation towards the development, implementation, and evaluation of targeted, evidence-based strategies that promote equitable and inclusive patient participation in research.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Research is essential to understanding and addressing complex health challenges.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Healthcare institutions play a critical role in advancing inclusive research strategies that enable effective patient recruitment.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that a paradigm shift is required, moving beyond the repeated identification of barriers and facilitators affecting research participation towards the development, implementation, and evaluation of targeted, evidence-based strategies that promote equitable and inclusive patient participation in research.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:healthcare research · Patient recruitrment · Participation

Abstract

Research is essential to understanding and addressing complex health challenges. Healthcare institutions play a critical role in advancing inclusive research strategies that enable effective patient recruitment. Despite this, patient engagement in research remains persistently low and often fails to reflect the diversity of the populations served. Inadequate recruitment is a long-standing challenge and a leading cause of study failure or early discontinuation, resulting in underpowered studies, inconclusive findings, and unanswered research questions. Gaining a deeper understanding of the factors influencing patients’ willingness to participate in research is therefore essential for healthcare institutions, policymakers, and researchers seeking to design more effective and equitable recruitment strategies. A narrative review of the literature was undertaken which aimed to explore the factors that influence patient recruitment and participation in research studies within healthcare settings. Eleven articles were analysed revealing four key themes influencing patient recruitment: (1) altruistic intent, (2) adaptive research strategies for patient recruitment, (3) the importance of strengthening communication strategies in research, and (4) the civic duty of healthcare organisations. These themes highlight the interplay between individual and organisational influences on patients’ decisions to engage in research. The findings indicate that a paradigm shift is required, moving beyond the repeated identification of barriers and facilitators affecting research participation towards the development, implementation, and evaluation of targeted, evidence-based strategies that promote equitable and inclusive patient participation in research.

🔖

Cite This Article

Whitby, E., Rylance-Graham, R. (2026). FACTORS INFLUENCING PATIENT RECRUITMENT INTO HEALTHCARE RESEARCH: A QUALITATIVE NARRATIVE REVIEW. International Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, Volume: 11 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.33457/ijhsrp.1867190

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (94)

  1. E. Isaksson, P. Wester, A. C. Laska, P. Näsman, and E. Lundström, “Identifying important barriers to recruitment of patients in randomised clinical studies using a questionnaire for study personnel,” Trials, vol. 20, no. 1, 2019, doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3737-1.
  2. L. Jonker and S. J. Fisher, “The correlation between National Health Service trusts' clinical trial activity and both mortality rates and care quality commission ratings: A retrospective cross-sectional study,” Public Health, vol. 157, pp. 1–6, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2017.12.022.
  3. D. H. Bodicoat, A. C. Routen, A. Willis, W. Ekezie, C. Gillies, C. Lawson, T. Yates, F. Zaccardi, M. J. Davies, and K. Khunti, “Promoting inclusion in clinical trials—A rapid review of the literature and recommendations for action,” Trials, vol. 22, no. 1, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05849-7.
  4. A. C. Fanaroff, S. Li, L. E. Webb, V. Miller, A. M. Navar, E. D. Peterson, and T. Y. Wang, “An observational study of the association of video- versus text-based informed consent with multicenter trial enrollment,” Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes, vol. 11, no. 4, Art. no. e004675, 2018, doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.004675.
  5. D. M. Shahian, D. McCloskey, X. Liu, E. Schneider, D. Cheng, and E. A. Mort, “The association of hospital research publications and clinical quality,” Health Serv. Res., vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 587–597, 2022, doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13947.
  6. D. J. Borg, M. Haritopoulou-Sinanidou, P. Gabrovska, H.-W. Tseng, D. Honeyman, D. Schweitzer, and K. M. Rae, “Barriers and facilitators for recruiting and retaining male participants into longitudinal health research: A systematic review,” BMC Med. Res. Methodol., vol. 24, no. 1, 2024, doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02163-z.
  7. A. A. Adegnika, J. H. Amuasi, P. Basinga, D. Berhanu, A. A. Medhanyie, Y. B. Okwaraji, L. Å. Persson, B. Savadogo, J. Schellenberg, and P. Steinmann, “Embed capacity development within all global health research,” BMJ Glob. Health, vol. 6, no. 2, Art. no. e004692, 2021, doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004692.
  8. R. Mansour, H. Naal, T. Kishawi, N. E. Achi, L. Hneiny, and S. Saleh, “Health research capacity building of health workers in fragile and conflict-affected settings: A scoping review of challenges, strengths, and recommendations,” Health Res. Policy Syst., vol. 19, no. 1, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s12961-021-00725-x.
  9. M. Briel, B. S. Elger, S. McLennan, S. Schandelmaier, E. von Elm, and P. Satalkar, “Exploring reasons for recruitment failure in clinical trials: A qualitative study with clinical trial stakeholders in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada,” Trials, vol. 22, no. 1, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05818-0.
  10. T. Mouw, T. Hong, S. Sarwar, and A. Walling, “Discontinuation of surgical versus nonsurgical clinical trials: An analysis of 88,498 trials,” J. Surg. Res., vol. 227, pp. 151–157, 2018.
  11. R. Sheridan, J. Martin-Kerry, J. Hudson, A. Parker, P. Bower, and P. Knapp, “Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators,” Trials, vol. 21, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-4197-3.
  12. Health Research Authority, UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/policies-standards-legislation/uk-policy-framework-health-social-care-research/. [Accessed: ].
  13. NHS England, Health and Social Care Act 2022, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/31/contents. [Accessed: ].
  14. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (FDORA) 2022, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/selected-amendments-fdc-act/food-and-drug-omnibus-reform-act-fdora-2022. [Accessed: ].
  15. M. Adams, L. Caffrey, and C. McKevitt, “Barriers and opportunities for enhancing patient recruitment and retention in clinical research: Findings from an interview study in an NHS academic health science centre,” Health Res. Policy Syst., vol. 13, no. 1, 2015, doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-13-8.
  16. A. G. Bikou, E. Deligianni, F. Dermiki-Gkana, N. Liappas, J. G. Terius-Padron, M. E. B. Jaunsaras, M. F. Cabrera-Umpierrez, and C. Kontogiorgis, “Improving participant recruitment in clinical trials: Comparative analysis of innovative digital platforms,” J. Med. Internet Res., 2024, doi: 10.2196/60504.
  17. P. S. A. Moore, A. Colquhoun, B. Healy, L. Ellison-Loschmann, J. D. Potter, G. Garvey, and F. Bray, “Cancer incidence in indigenous people in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the USA: A comparative population-based study,” Lancet Oncol., vol. 16, 2015.
  18. K. E. A. Burns, N. Magyarody, D. Jiang, and R. Wald, “Attitudes and views of the general public towards research participation,” Intern. Med. J., vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 531–540, 2013, doi: 10.1111/imj.12091.
  19. L. Bugeja, J. K. Low, R. A. McGinnes, V. Team, S. Sinha, and C. Weller, “Barriers and enablers to patient recruitment for randomised controlled trials on treatment of chronic wounds: A systematic review,” Int. Wound J., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 880–892, 2018, doi: 10.1111/iwj.12940.
  20. F. Ecarnot, N. Meunier-Beillard, J. P. Quenot, and N. Meneveau, “Factors associated with refusal or acceptance of older patients (≥65 years) to provide consent to participate in clinical research in cardiology: A qualitative study,” Aging Clin. Exp. Res., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 133–140, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s40520-019-01172-z.
  21. H. Harvey, J. Pierce, and D. Hirshberg, “Using participatory research to develop a culturally responsive early childhood assessment tool,” J. Particip. Res. Methods, vol. 4, no. 2, 2023, doi: 10.35844/001c.77624.
  22. S. Barello, G. Graffigna, E. Vegni, and A. C. Bosio, “The challenges of conceptualizing patient engagement in health care: A lexicographic literature review,” J. Particip. Med., vol. 4, no. 4, Art. no. e9, 2012.
  23. O. Bifarin, J. Miah, M. Harvey, G. Faragher, J. Thai, D. Dewar, J. Garden, L. Nicholson, N. Wilson, N. Husain, and D. W. Joyce, “Co-production and implementation of ‘Count Me In’: A bottom-up approach to inclusive research and participation in a National Health Service in England,” Health Expect., vol. 28, no. 3, 2025, doi: 10.1111/hex.70326.
  24. T. Greenhalgh, S. Thorne, and K. Malterud, “Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?,” Eur. J. Clin. Invest., vol. 48, no. 6, Art. no. e12931, 2018, doi: 10.1111/eci.12931.
  25. J. Sukhera, “Narrative reviews: Flexible, rigorous, and practical,” J. Grad. Med. Educ., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 414–417, 2022, doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-22-00480.1.
  26. S. Sarkar and G. Bhatia, “Writing and appraising narrative reviews,” J. Clin. Sci. Res., vol. 10, 2021, doi: 10.4103/jcsr.jcsr_1_21.
  27. T. Horsley, “Tips for improving the writing and reporting quality of systematic, scoping, and narrative reviews,” J. Contin. Educ. Health Prof., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 54–57, 2019, doi: 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000241.
  28. T. P. Kunonga, B. Hanratty, P. Bower, and D. Craig, “A systematic review finds a lack of consensus in methodological approaches in health inequality/inequity focused reviews,” J. Clin. Epidemiol., vol. 156, pp. 76–84, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.02.013.
  29. H. A. Long, D. P. French, and J. M. Brooks, “Optimising the value of the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) tool for quality appraisal in qualitative evidence synthesis,” Res. Methods Med. Health Sci., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 31–42, 2020, doi: 10.1177/2632084320947559.
  30. K. Hannes and K. Macaitis, “A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis: Update on a review of published papers,” Qual. Res., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 402–442, 2012, doi: 10.1177/1468794111432992.
  31. H. R. Boeije, F. van Wesel, and E. Alisic, “Making a difference: Towards a method for weighing the evidence in a qualitative synthesis,” J. Eval. Clin. Pract., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 657–663, 2011, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01674.x.
  32. Health Research Authority, Checklist – Standards, Codes, and Approvals, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/research-planning/how-were-supporting-data-driven-technology/overview-legal-requirements-using-health-and-care-data-development-and-deployment-data-driven-technologies/4-checklist-standards-codes-and-approvals/. [Accessed: Jul. 13, 2025].
  33. D. Byrne, “A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis,” Qual. Quant., vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 1391–1412, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y.
  34. G. W. Noblit and R. D. Hare, Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage Publications, 1988.
  35. V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qual. Res. Psychol., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, 2006, doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
  36. V. Braun and V. Clarke, “One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?,” Qual. Res. Psychol., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 328–352, 2021, doi: 10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238.
  37. J. Lachal, A. Revah-Levy, M. Orri, and M. R. Moro, “Metasynthesis: An original method to synthesize qualitative literature in psychiatry,” Front. Psychiatry, vol. 8, Art. no. 269, 2017, doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00269.
  38. D. Abdulhussein, T. E. Yap, H. Manzar, S. Miodragovic, and F. Cordeiro, “Factors impacting participation in research during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from a survey of patients in the ophthalmology outpatient department,” Trials, vol. 23, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06748-1.
  39. T. Gaillard, D. Z. Shambley-Ebron, J. A. Vaccaro, D. F. Neff, C. M. Padovano, P. Swagger, E. Vieira, and F. Webb, “Intergenerational influence of African American, Caribbean and Hispanic/Latino adults regarding decision to participate in health-related research,” Res. Aging, vol. 46, nos. 7–8, pp. 414–425, 2024, doi: 10.1177/01640275241229411.
  40. B. Mandane, A. Amirthanayagam, N. Patel, N. Darko, and E. L. Moss, “Attitudes and barriers to participation in window-of-opportunity trials reported by White and Asian/Asian British ethnicity patients who have undergone treatment for endometrial cancer,” Trials, vol. 24, no. 1, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07572-x.
  41. D. Rheinberger, F. Shand, K. Mok, L. McGillivray, M. Maple, A. Burnett, L. N. Sharwood, N. A. Chen, and M. Torok, “A qualitative analysis of motivators to participation in suicide-focused research from a community-based Australian sample,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 18, no. 9, Art. no. 4705, 2021, doi: 10.3390/ijerph18094705.
  42. J. E. Bontemps-Jones, L. E. McCullough, E. G. Kirkland, L. R. Teras, P. Briggs, M. C. Whitt-Glover, S. Arline-Bradley, J. Winn, J. Lett, and A. V. Patel, “Beyond Tuskegee: A contemporary qualitative assessment of barriers to research participation among Black women,” Cancer, vol. 131, no. 1, Art. no. e35648, 2025, doi: 10.1002/cncr.35648.
  43. A. L. Tamlyn, M. Tjilos, N. A. Bosch, K. G. Barnett, R. B. Perkins, A. Walkey, S. A. Assoumou, B. P. Linas, and M.-L. Drainoni, “At the intersection of trust and mistrust: A qualitative analysis of motivators and barriers to research participation at a safety-net hospital,” Health Expect., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1118–1126, 2023, doi: 10.1111/hex.13726.
  44. S. Abouhala, A. Abdulle, G. Aziz, A. Hussein, N. Zanial, I. Shalabi, M. J. Stiffler, R. Hawa, M. Tariq, G. Ady, G. H. Awad, and N. N. Abuelezam, “‘Our voices will get louder’: A qualitative exploration of factors influencing Arab/Middle Eastern North African (MENA) American patient participation in U.S.-based health care and health research,” J. Racial Ethn. Health Disparities, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s40615-024-02255-y.
  45. K. A. Riggan, A. Rousseau, M. Halyard, S. E. James, M. Kelly, D. Phillips, and M. A. Allyse, “‘There’s not enough studies’: Views of Black breast and ovarian cancer patients on research participation,” Cancer Med., vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 8767–8776, 2023, doi: 10.1002/cam4.5622.
  46. N. Courvoisier, C. Storari, S. Lesage, L. Vittoz, C. Barbieux, I. Peytremann-Bridevaux, I. Gilles, and A. Calmy, “Facilitators and barriers of women’s participation in HIV clinical research in Switzerland: A qualitative study,” HIV Med., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 441–447, 2022, doi: 10.1111/hiv.13259.
  47. J. V. Mokhnatkin, M. Bae, W. Dale, A. Tiwari, J. Patanapirom, and M. S. Sedrak, “Facilitators and barriers to older adult participation in cancer trials: A qualitative study exploring patient-caregiver dyad congruence,” JCO Oncol. Pract., vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 484–492, 2023, doi: 10.1200/OP.22.00843.
  48. C. D. Batson and A. A. Powell, “Altruism and prosocial behavior,” in Handbook of Psychology: Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 5, I. B. Weiner, Ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
  49. J. S. Carrera, P. Brown, J. G. Brody, and R. Morello-Frosch, “Research altruism as motivation for participation in community-centred environmental health research,” Soc. Sci. Med., vol. 196, pp. 175–181, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.11.028.
  50. Y. Liu, H. Xing, Y. Gao, X. Bian, X. Fu, B. DiFabrizio, and H. Wang, “Disrupting the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex attenuates the difference in decision-making for altruistic punishment between the gain and loss contexts,” Brain Topogr., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 699–711, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10548-023-01029-9.
  51. K. Canvin and A. Jacoby, “Duty, desire or indifference? A qualitative study of patient decisions about recruitment to an epilepsy treatment trial,” Trials, vol. 7, no. 1, Art. no. 32, 2006, doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-7-32.
  52. K. Dubé, K. E. Perry, K. Mathur, M. Lo, S. S. Javadi, H. Patel, S. Concha-Garcia, J. Taylor, A. Kaytes, L. Dee, D. Campbell, J. Kanazawa, D. Smith, S. Gianella, J. D. Auerbach, P. Saberi, and J. A. Sauceda, “Altruism: Scoping review of the literature and future directions for HIV cure-related research,” J. Virus Erad., vol. 6, no. 4, Art. no. 100008, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jve.2020.100008.
  53. M. Hussain-Gambles, K. Atkin, and B. Leese, “Why ethnic minority groups are under-represented in clinical trials: A review of the literature,” Health Soc. Care Community, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 382–388, 2004, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2004.00507.x.
  54. Z. Yang and P. Li, “Decoding the altruistic brain: An ALE meta-analysis of the functional localization of giving behaviors,” Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., vol. 174, Art. no. 106205, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106205.
  55. S. K. McCann, M. K. Campbell, and V. A. Entwistle, “Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: Conditional altruism and considerations for self,” Trials, vol. 11, no. 1, Art. no. 31, 2010, doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-31.
  56. A. Mahmud, O. Zalay, A. Springer, K. Arts, and E. Eisenhauer, “Barriers to participation in clinical trials: A physician survey,” Curr. Oncol., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 119–125, 2018, doi: 10.3747/co.25.3857.
  57. F. Krebs, L. Lorenz, F. Nawabi, I. Lück, A.-M. Bau, A. Alayli, and S. Stock, “Recruitment in health services research—A study on facilitators and barriers for the recruitment of community-based healthcare providers,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 18, no. 19, Art. no. 10521, 2021, doi: 10.3390/ijerph181910521.
  58. H. R. Fisher, C. McKevitt, and A. Boaz, “Why do parents enrol their children in research: A narrative synthesis,” J. Med. Ethics, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 544–551, 2011, doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.040220.
  59. S. Islam, O. Joseph, A. Chaudry, D. Forde, A. Keane, C. Wilson, N. Begum, S. Parsons, T. Grey, L. Holmes, and B. Starling, “‘We are not hard to reach, but we may find it hard to trust’: Involving and engaging ‘seldom listened to’ community voices in clinical translational health research: A social innovation approach,” Res. Involv. Engagem., vol. 7, no. 1, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00292-z.
  60. N. W. S. Payne, K. F. Brown, C. Delon, Y. Kotrotsios, I. Soerjomataram, and J. Shelton, “Socio-economic deprivation and cancer incidence in England: Quantifying the role of smoking,” PLoS ONE, vol. 17, no. 9, Art. no. e0272202, 2022, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272202.
  61. K. Kwiatkowski, K. Coe, J. C. Bailar, and G. M. Swanson, “Inclusion of minorities and women in cancer clinical trials, a decade later: Have we improved?,” Cancer, vol. 119, no. 16, pp. 2956–2963, 2013, doi: 10.1002/cncr.28168.
  62. A. D. Mancini, “When acute adversity improves psychological health: A social-contextual framework,” Psychol. Rev., vol. 126, no. 4, pp. 486–505, 2019, doi: 10.1037/rev0000144.
  63. K. Allison, D. Patel, and R. Kaur, “Assessing multiple factors affecting minority participation in clinical trials: Development of the Clinical Trials Participation Barriers Survey,” Cureus, 2022, doi: 10.7759/cureus.24424.
  64. J. M. Unger, D. L. Hershman, C. Till, L. M. Minasian, R. U. Osarogiagbon, M. E. Fleury, and R. Vaidya, “‘When offered to participate’: A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient agreement to participate in cancer clinical trials,” JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst., vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 244–257, 2021, doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa155.
  65. L. Mbuagbaw, T. Aves, B. Shea, J. Jull, V. Welch, M. Taljaard, M. Yoganathan, R. Greer-Smith, G. Wells, and P. Tugwell, “Considerations and guidance in designing equity-relevant clinical trials,” Int. J. Equity Health, vol. 16, no. 1, 2017, doi: 10.1186/s12939-017-0591-1.
  66. S. S. Small, E. Lau, K. McFarlane, P. M. Archambault, H. Longstaff, and C. M. Hohl, “Research recruitment and consent methods in a pandemic: A qualitative study of COVID-19 patients’ perspectives,” BMC Med. Res. Methodol., vol. 23, no. 1, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-01933-5.
  67. A. L. McGuire, M. P. Aulisio, F. D. Davis, C. Erwin, T. D. Harter, R. Jagsi, R. Klitzman, R. Macauley, E. Racine, S. M. Wolf, M. Wynia, and P. R. Wolpe, “Ethical challenges arising in the COVID-19 pandemic: An overview from the Association of Bioethics Program Directors (ABPD) Task Force,” Am. J. Bioeth., vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 15–27, 2020, doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1764138.
  68. E. Rothwell, D. Brassil, M. Barton-Baxter, K. A. Brownley, N. W. Dickert, D. E. Ford, S. A. Kraft, J. B. McCormick, and B. S. Wilfond, “Informed consent: Old and new challenges in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic,” J. Clin. Transl. Sci., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2021, doi: 10.1017/cts.2021.401.
  69. H. Garg and P. Khanna, “Consent in COVID: A researcher’s dilemma,” Trends Anaesth. Crit. Care, vol. 38, pp. 10–12, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.tacc.2021.03.010.
  70. M. I. Lapid, K. M. Meagher, H. C. Giunta, B. L. Clarke, Y. Ouellette, T. L. Armbrust, R. R. Sharp, and R. S. Wright, “Ethical challenges in COVID-19 biospecimen research,” Mayo Clin. Proc., vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 165–173, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.10.021.
  71. M. R. Al-Hawaiti, L. Sharif, and H. Elsayes, “Assertiveness in nursing: A systematic review of its role and impact in healthcare settings,” Nurs. Rep., vol. 15, no. 3, Art. no. 102, 2025, doi: 10.3390/nursrep15030102.
  72. National Institute for Health Research, Shared Commitment to Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arceoe.nihr.ac.uk/public-involvement/shared-commitment-public-involvement-healthand-social-care-research. [Accessed: Jul. 13, 2025].
  73. NHS England, Improving Communication Between Health Care Professionals and Patients in the NHS in England, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/improving-communication-between-healthcare-professionals-and-patients-in-the-nhs-in-england/. [Accessed: Jul. 13, 2025].
  74. S. Jepsen, J. G. Caton, J. M. Albandar, N. F. Bissada, P. Bouchard, P. Cortellini, K. Demirel, M. De Sanctis, C. Ercoli, J. Fan, N. C. Geurs, F. J. Hughes, L. Jin, A. Kantarci, E. Lalla, P. N. Madianos, D. Matthews, M. K. McGuire, M. P. Mills, and K. Yamazaki, “Periodontal manifestations of systemic diseases and developmental and acquired conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 3 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions,” J. Periodontol., vol. 89, Suppl. 1, pp. S237–S248, 2018, doi: 10.1002/JPER.17-0733.
  75. K. Sørensen, D. Levin-Zamir, T. V. Duong, O. Okan, V. V. Brasil, and D. Nutbeam, “Building health literacy system capacity: A framework for health literate systems,” Health Promot. Int., vol. 36, Suppl. 1, 2021, doi: 10.1093/heapro/daab153.
  76. E. Zibrowski, T. Carr, S. McDonald, H. Thiessen, R. Van Dusen, D. Goodridge, C. Haver, D. Marciniuk, C. Stobart, T. Verrall, and G. Groot, “A rapid realist review of patient engagement in patient-oriented research and health care system impacts: Part one,” Res. Involv. Engagem., vol. 7, no. 1, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00299-6.
  77. J. L. Johnson, D. Adkins, and S. Chauvin, “A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research,” Am. J. Pharm. Educ., vol. 84, no. 1, Art. no. 7120, 2020, doi: 10.5688/ajpe7120.
  78. L. Leung, “Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research,” J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 324–327, 2015, doi: 10.4103/2249-4863.161306.
  79. L. Horvat, D. Horey, P. Romios, and J. Kis-Rigo, “Cultural competence education for health professionals,” Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., no. 5, Art. no. CD009405, 2014, doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009405.pub2.
  80. World Health Organization, Empowering Communities to Protect Themselves, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/europe/activities/empowering-communities-to-protect-themselves. [Accessed: Jul. 13, 2025 ].
  81. O. Corrigan, S. Danielsen, S. Doherty, and P. Lane, “Integrated care systems in England: The significance of collaborative community assets in promoting and sustaining health and wellbeing,” Front. Sociol., vol. 9, 2024, doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1355215.
  82. F. M. Iqbal, K. Lam, V. Sounderajah, J. M. Clarke, H. Ashrafian, and A. Darzi, “Characteristics and predictors of acute and chronic post-COVID syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” EClinicalMedicine, vol. 36, Art. no. 100899, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100899.
  83. P. Sedgwick, “Convenience sampling,” BMJ, vol. 347, Art. no. f6304, 2013, doi: 10.1136/bmj.f6304.
  84. L. P. Forsythe, K. L. Carman, V. Szydlowski, L. Fayish, L. Davidson, D. H. Hickam, C. Hall, G. Bhat, D. Neu, L. Stewart, M. Jalowsky, N. Aronson, and C. U. Anyanwu, “Patient engagement in research: Early findings from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute,” Health Aff., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 359–367, 2019, doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05067.
  85. F. Hoekstra, K. J. Mrklas, M. Khan, R. C. McKay, M. Vis-Dunbar, K. M. Sibley, T. Nguyen, I. D. Graham, and H. L. Gainforth, “A review of reviews on principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: A first step in synthesising the research partnership literature,” Health Res. Policy Syst., vol. 18, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0544-9.
  86. S. Béland, M. Lambert, A. Delahunty-Pike, D. Howse, C. Schwarz, and M.-C. Chouinard, “Patient and researcher experiences of patient engagement in primary care health care research: A participatory qualitative study,” Health Expect., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 2365–2376, 2022, doi: 10.1111/hex.13542.
  87. S. A. Dews, L. Corner, R. Butfield, M. Araghi, H. Monelle, P. Westergaard, S. Moloney, V. Wontor, and A. Campbell Burton, “Co-creating tools for embedding meaningful patient and public involvement and engagement in real-world data and evidence research in the pharmaceutical industry setting: A multistakeholder participatory co-design study,” BMJ Open, vol. 15, no. 2, Art. no. e088914, 2025, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088914.
  88. T. L. McCarron, F. Clement, J. Rasiah, C. Moran, K. Moffat, and A. Gonzalez, “Patients as partners in health research: A scoping review,” Health Expect., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 1378–1390, 2021, doi: 10.1111/hex.13272.
  89. INVOLVE, About INVOLVE, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.involve.org.uk/about/about-involve. [Accessed: Jul. 13, 2025 ].
  90. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, About PCORI, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.pcori.org/about/about-pcori. [Accessed: Jul. 13, 2025 ].
  91. J. Ocloo and R. Matthews, “From tokenism to empowerment: Progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement,” BMJ Qual. Saf., vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 626–632, 2016, doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004839.
  92. N. Lyons, C. Cooper, and B. Lloyd-Evans, “A systematic review and meta-analysis of group peer support interventions for people experiencing mental health conditions,” BMC Psychiatry, vol. 21, no. 1, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s12888-021-03321-z.
  93. H. J. Westerink, T. Oirbans, M. M. Garvelink, C. F. van Uden-Kraan, O. Zouitni, H. A. J. Bart, P. J. van der Wees, and P. B. van der Nat, “Barriers and facilitators of meaningful patient participation at the collective level in healthcare organizations: A systematic review,” Health Policy, vol. 138, Art. no. 104946, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104946.
  94. Gov.UK, Fit for the Future: 10 Year Health Plan for England – Executive Summary, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/10-year-health-plan-for-england-fit-for-the-future/fit-for-the-future-10-year-health-plan-for-england-executive-summary. [Accessed: Jul. 13, 2025].