Section 1 - Principles of Research
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 October 2025
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Research Methods in Mental HealthA Comprehensive Guide, pp. 1 - 80Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Further Reading
Critchley, H., Tracy, D., Mahli, G.S. et al. Academic Psychiatry is everyone’s business. BJPsych, E-pub ahead of print, 16 Oct 2024.Google Scholar
Mayo, M, Rockey, J. Don, C. et al. Development of a successful scholarly activity and research program for subspecialty trainees. American Journal of the Medical Sciences 350, 222–7 (2015).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
References
Altman, D. G. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 308, 283–4 (1994). https://doi.org:10.1136/bmj.308.6924.283CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
UKRIO. What is research integrity? (2024). https://ukrio.org/research-integrity/what-is-research-integrity/Google Scholar
Chalmers, I. & Glasziou, P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374, 86–9 (2009). https://doi.org:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyer, C. Lancet retracts Wakefield’s MMR paper. BMJ 340, c696 (2010). https://doi.org:10.1136/bmj.c696CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlisle, J. B. The analysis of 168 randomised controlled trials to test data integrity. Anaesthesia 67, 521–37 (2012). https://doi.org:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07128.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlisle, J. B. Data fabrication and other reasons for non-random sampling in 5087 randomised, controlled trials in anaesthetic and general medical journals. Anaesthesia 72, 944–52 (2017). https://doi.org:10.1111/anae.13938CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnett, A. Publication bias or research misconduct? (2022). https://medianwatch.netlify.app/post/z_values/Google Scholar
van Zweet, E. W. & Cater, E. A. The significance filter, the winner’s curse and the need to shrink. Statistica Neerlandica 75, 437–52 (2021). https://doi.org:https://medianwatch.netlify.app/post/z_values/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanelli, D. ‘Positive’ results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS One 5, e10068 (2010). https://doi.org:10.1371/journal.pone.0010068CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Royal Society. The scientific century: securing our future prosperity. The Royal Society, London, UK (2010).Google Scholar
Serra-Garcia, M. & Gneezy, U. Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones. Scientific Advances 7 (2021). https://doi.org:10.1126/sciadv.abd1705Google ScholarPubMed
Miranda, R. & Garcia-Carpintero, E. Overcitation and overrepresentation of review papers in the most cited papers. Journal of Informetrics 12, 1015–30 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brembs, B. Prestigious science journals struggle to reach even average reliability. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 12, 37 (2018). https://doi.org:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037Google ScholarPubMed
Brembs, B., Button, K. & Munafo, M. Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7, 291 (2013). https://doi.org:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munafo, M. R. et al. 5-HTTLPR genotype and anxiety-related personality traits: a meta-analysis and new data. American Journal of Medical Genetics B Neuropsychiatry Genetics 150B, 271–81 (2009). https://doi.org:10.1002/ajmg.b.30808Google ScholarPubMed
Biagioli, M. Watch out for cheats in citation game. Nature 535, 201 (2016). https://doi.org:10.1038/535201aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plummer, S. et al. Trends in the number of authors and institutions in papers published in AJPE 2015–2019. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 87, ajpe8972 (2023). https://doi.org:10.5688/ajpe8972CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Else, H. Multimillion-dollar trade in paper authorships alarms publishers. Nature 613, 617–18 (2023). https://doi.org:10.1038/d41586-023-00062-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freakonomics. January 8, 2023. Stephen Dubner and Angela Duckworth. Why do we cheat, and why shouldn’t we? Episode 129. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-do-we-cheat-and-why-shouldnt-we/Google Scholar
Freakonomics. February 14, 2021. Stephen Dubner and Angela Duckworth. Is everybody cheating these days? Episode 39. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/is-everybody-cheating-these-days/Google Scholar
Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A. & Fang, F. C. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS One 8, e68397 (2013). https://doi.org:10.1371/journal.pone.0068397CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Noorden, R. More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 – a new record. Nature 624, 479–81 (2023). https://doi.org:10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parr, C. (November 30, 2014). Death by academic pressure. Times Higher Education. The Times, London, UK.Google Scholar
Goldacre, B. et al. COMPare: a prospective cohort study correcting and monitoring 58 misreported trials in real time. Trials 20, 118 (2019). https://doi.org:10.1186/s13063-019-3173-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trinquart, L., Dunn, A. G. & Bourgeois, F. T. Registration of published randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medicine 16, 173 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1186/s12916-018-1168-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Samaan, Z. et al. A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare 6, 169–88 (2013). https://doi.org:10.2147/JMDH.S43952Google ScholarPubMed
Cochrane. Methods priority setting (2024). https://methods.cochrane.org/prioritysetting/Google Scholar
Center for Open Science. A decade of impact. Shaping a positive research culture (2024). https://www.cos.ioGoogle Scholar
Center for Open Science. The TOP Guidelines were created by journals, funders, and societies to align scientific ideals with practices (2024). www.cos.io/initiatives/top-guidelinesGoogle Scholar
Norris, E. & O’Connor, D.B. Science as behaviour: using a behaviour change approach to increase uptake of open science. Psychological Health 34, 1397–406 (2019). https://doi.org:10.1080/08870446.2019.1679373CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacKinac Center for Public Policy. The Overton Window (2024). www.mackinac.org/OvertonWindowGoogle Scholar
Further Reading
Merton, RK (ed.). (1973) [1942]. The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 267–78. ISBN 978-0-226-52091-9, OCLC 755754.Google Scholar
References
Khaleeli, H. A body language lesson gone wrong: why is George Osborne standing like Beyoncé? The Guardian 2015, 7 October.Google Scholar
Carney, DR, Cuddy, AJC, Yap, AJ. Power posing: brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science 2010;21[10]:1363–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ranehill, E, Dreber, A, Johannesson, M, et al. Assessing the robustness of power posing: no effect on hormones and risk tolerance in a large sample of men and women. Psychological Science 2015;26[5]:653–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elkjær, E, Mikkelsen, MB, Michalak, J, Mennin, DS, O’Toole, MS. Expansive and contractive postures and movement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of motor displays on affective and behavioral responses. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2020;17[1]:276–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munafò, MR, Nosek, BA, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour 2017;1[1].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ioannidis, JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine 2005;2[8]:e124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collaboration, OS. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 2015;349[6251]:aac4716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 2016;533[7604]:452–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, CH, Siah, KW, Lo, AW. Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters. Biostatistics 2018;20[2]:273–86.Google Scholar
Freedman, LP, Cockburn, IM, Simcoe, TS. The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLOS Biology 2015;13[6]:e1002165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macleod, MR, Michie, S, Roberts, I, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. The Lancet 2014;383[9912]:101–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wakefield, AJ, Murch, SH, Anthony, A, et al. RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet 1998;351[9103]:637–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rozek, LS, Jones, P, Menon, A, et al. Understanding vaccine hesitancy in the context of COVID-19: the role of trust and confidence in a seventeen-country survey. International Journal of Public Health 2021;66:636255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggertson, L. Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l’Association medicale canadienne 2010;182[4]:E199–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suelzer, EM, Deal, J, Hanus, KL, et al. Assessment of citations of the retracted article by Wakefield et al with fraudulent claims of an association between vaccination and autism. JAMA Network Open 2019;2[11]:e1915552-e.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bar-Ilan, J, Halevi, G. Post retraction citations in context: a case study. Scientometrics 2017;113[1]:547–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
John, LK, Loewenstein, G, Prelec, D. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science 2012;23[5]:524–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simmons, JP, Nelson, LD, Simonsohn, U. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 2011;22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, A, Loken, E. The garden of forking paths: why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no ‘fishing expedition’ or ‘p-hacking’ and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time. 2013. https://sites.stat.columbia.edu/gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdfGoogle Scholar
Silberzahn, R, Uhlmann, EL, Martin, DP, et al. Many analysts, one data set: making transparent how variations in analytic choices affect results. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 2018;1[3]:337–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munafò, MR, Chambers, CD, Collins, AM, Fortunato, L, Macleod, MR. Research culture and reproducibility. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2020;24[2]:91–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crüwell, S, van Doorn, J, Etz, A, et al. Seven easy steps to open science: an annotated reading list. Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 2019;227[4]:237–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kathawalla, U-K, Silverstein, P, Syed, M. Easing into open science: a guide for graduate students and their advisors. Collabra: Psychology 2021;7[1].Google Scholar
Markowetz, F. Five selfish reasons to work reproducibly. Genome Biology 2015;16[1]:274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colavizza, G, Hrynaszkiewicz, I, Staden, I, Whitaker, K, McGillivray, B. The citation advantage of linking publications to research data. PLoS One 2020;15[4]:e0230416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tennant, JP, Waldner, F, Jacques, DC, et al. The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review [version 3; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research. 2016;5:632.Google ScholarPubMed
Fraser, N, Momeni, F, Mayr, P, Peters, I. The relationship between bioRxiv preprints, citations and altmetrics. Quantitative Science Studies 2020;1[2]:618–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalczyk, O, Lautarescu, A, Blok, E, Dall’Aglio, L, Westwood, S. What senior academics can do to support reproducible and open research: a short, three-step guide 2020. https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13104-022-05999-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrynaszkiewicz, I, Norton, ML, Vickers, AJ, Altman, DG. Preparing raw clinical data for publication: guidance for journal editors, authors, and peer reviewers. Trials 2010;11[1]:9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keerie, C, Tuck, C, Milne, G, et al. Data sharing in clinical trials – practical guidance on anonymising trial datasets. Trials 2018;19[1]:25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tucker, K, Branson, J, Dilleen, M, et al. Protecting patient privacy when sharing patient-level data from clinical trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2016;16[1]:77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haven, TL, Van Grootel, DL. Preregistering qualitative research. Accountability in Research 2019;26[3]:229–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, AC, Kohrt, BA, Matthews, LT, et al. Promises and pitfalls of data sharing in qualitative research. Social Sciences & Medicine 2016;169:191–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moseley, P, Aleman, A, Allen, P, et al. Correlates of hallucinatory experiences in the general population: an international multisite replication study. Psychological Science 2021;32[7]:1024–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, O, Hardwicke, TE, Aust, F, et al. A practical guide for transparency in psychological science. Collabra: Psychology 2018;4[1].Google Scholar
Bell, V. Open science in mental health research. Lancet Psychiatry 2017;4[7]:525–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Turing Way guide for reproducible research. Available from: https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/reproducible-research/reproducible-research.htmlGoogle Scholar
YaRrr! The Pirate’s Guide to R. Available from: https://bookdown.org/ndphillips/YaRrr/Google Scholar
Bishop, D. Rein in the four horsemen of irreproducibility. Nature 2019;568[7753]:435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
When soes HARKing hurt?, Rubin M. Identifying when different types of undisclosed post hoc hypothesizing harm scientific progress. Review of General Psychology 2017;21[4]:308–20.Google Scholar
Fanelli, D. ‘Positive’ results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS One 2010;5[4]:e10068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dumas-Mallet, E, Button, KS, Boraud, T, Gonon, F, Munafo, MR. Low statistical power in biomedical science: a review of three human research domains. Royal Society Open Science 2017;4[2]:160254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosek, BA, Errington, TM. What is replication? PLoS Biology 2020;18[3]:e3000691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shu, LL, Mazar, N, Gino, F, Ariely, D, Bazerman, MH. Signing at the beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 2012;109[38]:15197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frith, U. Fast lane to slow science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2020;24[1]:1–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
References
Silvia, P.J. How to write a lot: a practical guide to productive academic writing. Am Psychol Assoc (2007). https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-23317-000Google Scholar
Gray, T. Publish and flourish: become a prolific scholar, 15th anniversary edition. (Teaching Academy New Mexico State University) (2020).Google Scholar
Critchley, H., Tracy, D.K., Malhi, G.S., et al. Academic psychiatry is everyone’s business. BJPsych (2024). https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2024.152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skuse, D.H. Education in psychiatry: the art of getting published. BJPsych Int 19, 36–8 (2022). https://doi.org:10.1192/bji.2021.27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kallestinova, E.D. How to write your first research paper. Yale J Biol Med 84, 181–90 (2011).Google ScholarPubMed
Balch, C.M. et al. Steps to getting your manuscript published in a high-quality medical journal. Ann Surg Oncol 25, 850–5 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1245/s10434-017-6320-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forero, D.A., Lopez-Leon, S. & Perry, G. A brief guide to the science and art of writing manuscripts in biomedicine. J Transl Med 18, 425 (2020). https://doi.org:10.1186/s12967-020-02596-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huston, P. & Choi, B. A guide to publishing scientific research in the health sciences. Can Commun Dis Rep 43, 169–75 (2017). https://doi.org:10.14745/ccdr.v43i09a01CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forero, D.A. et al. Negative effects of ‘predatory’ journals on global health research. Ann Glob Health 84, 584–9 (2018). https://doi.org:10.9204/aogh.2389Google ScholarPubMed
Grudniewicz, A. et al. Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature 576, 210–12 (2019). https://doi.org:10.1038/d41586-019-03759-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Medical Writers & International Society for Medical Publication. AMWA-EMWA-ISMPP joint position statement on predatory publishing. Curr Med Res Opin 35, 1657–8 (2019). https://doi.org:10.1080/03007995.2019.1646535Google Scholar
Dance, A. Authorship: who’s on first? Nature 489, 591–3 (2012). https://doi.org:10.1038/nj7417-591aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
References
Morris, Z. S., Wooding, S. & Grant, J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med 104, 510–20 (2011). https://doi.org:10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, V. Open science in mental health research. Lancet Psychiatry 4, 525–6 (2017). https://doi.org:10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30244-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Serafino, P. Exploring the UK’s digital divide, www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternetandsocialmediausage/articles/exploringtheuksdigitaldivide/2019-03-04 (2019).Google Scholar
Sipley, G. The post-covid future of virtual conferences. Impact of Social Sciences Blog London School of Economics (2021). https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/Google Scholar
References
Sewell, T, Aderin-Pocock, M, Chughtai, A, et al. Commission on race and ethnic disparities: The report. London: Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. (2021).Google Scholar
Modood, T, Berthoud, R, Lakey, J, et al. Ethnic minorities in Britain: diversity and disadvantage. Policy Studies Institute. (1997). https://doi.org/10.1177/001789699805700Google Scholar
Meeks, KA, Freitas-Da-Silva, D, Adeyemo, A, et al. Disparities in type 2 diabetes prevalence among ethnic minority groups resident in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Internal and Emergency Medicine 11(3):327–40 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-015-1302-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Francis, DK, Bennett, NR, Ferguson, TS, et al. Disparities in cardiovascular disease among Caribbean populations: a systematic literature review. BMC Public Health 15(1):1–7 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2166-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaturvedi, N. Ethnic differences in cardiovascular disease. Heart 1;89(6):681–6 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1136/heart.89.6.681CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, GK, Jemal, A. Socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities in cancer mortality, incidence, and survival in the United States, 1950–2014: over six decades of changing patterns and widening inequalities. Journal of Environmental and Public Health (2017). https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2819372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pham, TM, Carpenter, JR, Morris, TP, Sharma, M, Petersen, I. Ethnic differences in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes diagnoses in the UK: cross-sectional analysis of the health improvement network primary care database. Clinical Epidemiology 11:1081 (2019). https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S227621CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cappuccio, FP, Cook, DG, Atkinson, RW, Prevalence, Strazzullo P., detection, and management of cardiovascular risk factors in different ethnic groups in south London. Heart 1;78(6):555–63 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.78.6.555CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gill, PS, Plumridge, G, Khunti, K, Greenfield, S. Under-representation of minority ethnic groups in cardiovascular research: a semi-structured interview study. Family Practice 1;30(2):233–41 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cms054CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allmark, P. Should research samples reflect the diversity of the population? Journal of Medical Ethics 1;30(2):185–9 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2003.004374CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NICE. Overview. Type 2 diabetes in adults: management | Guidance. (2015). www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng28Google Scholar
Caleyachetty, R, Barber, TM, Mohammed, NI, et al. Ethnicity-specific BMI cutoffs for obesity based on type 2 diabetes risk in England: a population-based cohort study. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 1;9(7):419–26 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00088-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suleman, M, Sonthalia, S, Webb, C, et al. Unequal pandemic, fairer recovery: the covid-19 impact inquiry report. Health Foundation. (2021). https://doi.org/10.37829/HF-2021-HL12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, JM, Beevers, DG. Management of hypertension in ethnic minorities. Heart 1;91(8):1105–9 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2004.044560CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, G, Carter, B, Gifford, DK. Predicted cellular immunity population coverage gaps for SARS-CoV-2 subunit vaccines and their augmentation by compact peptide sets. Cell Systems 20;12(1):102–7 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2020.11.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Etti, M, Fofie, H, Razai, M, et al. Ethnic minority and migrant underrepresentation in Covid-19 research: causes and solutions. EClinicalMedicine 1;36 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100903Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO), Dementia. (2023). www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dementiaGoogle Scholar
Shin, J, Doraiswamy, PM. Underrepresentation of African-Americans in Alzheimer’s trials: a call for affirmative action. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 3;8:123 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2016.00123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, LL, Bennett, DA. Alzheimer’s disease in African Americans: risk factors and challenges for the future. Health Affairs 1;33(4):580–6 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1353CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalaria, RN, Maestre, GE, Arizaga, R, et al. Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia in developing countries: prevalence, management, and risk factors. Lancet Neurology 1;7(9):812–26 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70169-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lip, GYH, Barnett, AH, Bradbury, A, et al. Ethnicity and cardiovascular disease prevention in the United Kingdom: a practical approach to management. Journal of Human Hypertension 21: 183–211 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1002126CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Washington, HA. Medical apartheid: the dark history of medical experimentation on black Americans from colonial times to the present. New York: Doubleday Books (2006).Google Scholar
Hodge, FS. No meaningful apology for American Indian unethical research abuses. Ethics & Behavior 1;22(6):431–44 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2012.730788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharff, DP, Mathews, KJ, Jackson, P, et al. More than Tuskegee: understanding mistrust about research participation. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 21(3):879 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.0.0323CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waheed, W, Hughes-Morley, A, Woodham, A, Allen, G, Bower, P. Overcoming barriers to recruiting ethnic minorities to mental health research: a typology of recruitment strategies. BMC Psychiatry 15(1):1 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-015-0484-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hussain-Gambles, M, Atkin, K, Leese, B. South Asian participation in clinical trials: the views of lay people and health professionals. Health Policy 1;77(2):149–65 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.07.022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes-Morley, A, Young, B, Waheed, W, Small, N, Bower, P. Factors affecting recruitment into depression trials: systematic review, meta-synthesis and conceptual framework. Journal of Affective Disorders 1;172:274–90 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.10.005Google Scholar
Redwood, S, Gill, PS. Under-representation of minority ethnic groups in research–call for action. British Journal of General Practice 63:342–3 (2013). https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X668456CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hussain‐Gambles, M, Atkin, K, Leese, B. Why ethnic minority groups are under‐represented in clinical trials: a review of the literature. Health & Social Care in the Community 12(5):382–8 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2004.00507.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bazargan, M, Cobb, S, Assari, S. Discrimination and medical mistrust in a racially and ethnically diverse sample of California adults. Annals of Family Medicine 1;19(1):4–15 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bécares, L, Kapadia, D, Nazroo, J. Neglect of older ethnic minority people in UK research and policy. BMJ 11;368 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m212Google Scholar
Corbie-Smith, G, Thomas, SB, George, DM. Distrust, race, and research. Archives of Internal Medicine 162(21):2458–63 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.162.21.2458CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hussain-Gambles, M, Leese, B, Atkin, K, et al. Involving South Asian patients in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment 8(42):iii–109 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta8420CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ford, JG, Howerton, MW, Lai, GY, et al. Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: a systematic review. Cancer: Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society 112(2):228–42 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23157CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plumridge, G, Redwood, S, Greenfield, S, et al. Involving interpreters in research studies. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 17(3):190–2 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1258/JHSRP.2012.012003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fryer, C, Mackintosh, S, Stanley, M, Crichton, J. Qualitative studies using in‐depth interviews with older people from multiple language groups: methodological systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 68(1):22–35 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05719.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Las Nueces, D, Hacker, K, DiGirolamo, A, Hicks, LS. A systematic review of community‐based participatory research to enhance clinical trials in racial and ethnic minority groups. Health Services Research 47(3pt2):1363–86 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01386.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Indorewalla, KK, O’Connor, MK, Budson, AE, Jackson, J. Modifiable barriers for recruitment and retention of older adults participants from underrepresented minorities in Alzheimer’s disease research. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 1;80(3):927–40 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-201081CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheikh, A, Halani, L, Bhopal, R, et al. Facilitating the recruitment of minority ethnic people into research: qualitative case study of South Asians and asthma. PLoS Medicine 13;6(10):1000148 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000148CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheridan, SL, Halpern, DJ, Viera, AJ, et al. Interventions for individuals with low health literacy: a systematic review. Journal of Health Communication 16(3): 30–54 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2011.604391CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lloyd, CE, Johnson, MR, Mughal, S, et al. Securing recruitment and obtaining informed consent in minority ethnic groups in the UK. BMC Health Services Research 8(1):1–9 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-8-68CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sudore, RL, Landefeld, CS, Williams, BA, et al. Use of a modified informed consent process among vulnerable patients: a descriptive study. Journal of General Internal Medicine 21(8):867–73 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02743161Google ScholarPubMed
Lip, S, Dempster, G, Jain, S, et al. Underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in hypertension research—a survey of enablers and barriers among South Asian and African communities in Glasgow. Trials 23(1):1–8 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06542-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicholson, RA, Kreuter, MW, Lapka, C, et al. Unintended effects of emphasizing disparities in cancer communication to African-Americans. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 17(11):2946–53 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ejiogu, N, Norbeck, JH, Mason, MA, et al. Recruitment and retention strategies for minority or poor clinical research participants: lessons from the Healthy Aging in Neighbourhoods of Diversity across the Life Span study. The Gerontologist 1;51(1):S33–45 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnr027CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rooney, LK, Bhopal, R, Halani, L, et al. Promoting recruitment of minority ethnic groups into research: qualitative study exploring the views of South Asian people with asthma. Journal of Public Health 1;33(4):604–15 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdq100CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bamidele, OO, McGarvey, E. Lagan, H BM, et al. ‘Hard to reach, but not out of reach’: Barriers and facilitators to recruiting Black African and Black Caribbean men with prostate cancer and their partners into qualitative research. European Journal of Cancer Care 28(2):e12977 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12977Google Scholar
Hughes, AO, Fenton, S, Hine, CE. Strategies for sampling black and ethnic minority populations. Journal of Public Health 1;17(2):187–92 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a043091CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yancey, AK, Ortega, AN, Kumanyika, SK. Effective recruitment and retention of minority research participants. Annual Review of Public Health 21;27:1–28 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morse, EV, Simon, PM, Besch, CL, Walker, J. Issues of recruitment, retention, and compliance in community-based clinical trials with traditionally underserved populations. Applied Nursing Research 1;8(1):8–14 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0897-1897(95)80240-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papadopoulos, I, Tilki, M, Lees, S. Promoting cultural competence in health care through a research based intervention in the UK. Diversity in Health and Social Care 1;1(2):107–15 (2004).Google Scholar
Huerto, R. Minority patients benefit from having minority doctors, but that’s a hard match to make. University of Michigan. (2020). www.michiganmedicine.org/health-lab/minority-patients-benefit-having-minority-doctors-thats-hard-match-makeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holkup, PA, Tripp-Reimer, T, Salois, EM, Weinert, C. Community-based participatory research: an approach to intervention research with a Native American community. ANS Advances in Nursing Science 27(3):162–75 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-200407000-00002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jagosh, J, Bush, PL, Salsberg, J, et al. A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health 15(1):1 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1949-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foster, D. The Diversity Site Assessment Tool (DSAT), reliability and validity of the industry gold standard for establishing investigator site ranking. Integrative Journal of Medical Sciences [Internet]. 2020 Oct. 8 [cited 2024 Dec. 11];7. Available from: https://mbmj.org/index.php/ijms/article/view/266Centre for Ethnic Health Research. Equality Impact Assessment. Available at: (2022). https://ethnichealthresearch.org.uk/equality-impact-assessmentGoogle Scholar
Centre for Ethnic Health Research. Increasing diversity in research. (2022). https://ethnichealthresearch.org.uk/increasing-diversity-in-research/Google Scholar
Hart, JT. Semicontinuous screening of a whole community for hypertension. Lancet 1;296(7666):223–6 (1970). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(70)92582-1Google Scholar
NIHR. Improving inclusion of under-served groups in clinical research: Guidance from INCLUDE project, NIHR. (2020). www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/improving-inclusion-of-under-served-groups-in-clinical-research-guidance-from-include-project/25435Google Scholar
NIHR. NIHR Race Equality Framework, NIHR. (2022). www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/NIHR-race-equality-framework/30388Google Scholar
References
CDC. [internet]. The Untreated Syphilis Study at Tuskegee Timeline. Available from: www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/about/timeline.htmlGoogle Scholar
Staniszewska, S. et al. Reviewing progress in public involvement in NIHR research: developing and implementing a new vision for the future. BMJ Open 8(7): e017124 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crook, S. The women’s liberation movement, activism and therapy at the grassroots, 1968–1985. Womens Hist Rev 27(7): 1152–68 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/09612025.2018.1450611Google ScholarPubMed
Rose, D. Patient and public involvement in health research: ethical imperative and/or radical challenge?. J Health Psychol 19(1): 149–58 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105313500249CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marjanovic, S, Harshfield, A, Carpenter, A. et al. Involving patients and the public in research. Cambridge: The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge (2019), p. 16.Google Scholar
Wilson, P, Mathie, E, Keenan, J. et al. ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a realisT evaluation: the RAPPORT study. Health services and delivery research. University of Hertfordshire. 2015. www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr/hsdr03380/Google Scholar
Denegri, S, Coldham, T, Eglin, S. et al. Going the extra mile: improving the nation’s health and wellbeing through public involvement in research. London: NIHR (2015).Google Scholar
Boivin, A. et al. Evaluating patient and public involvement in research. BMJ 363: k5147 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k5147CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, O. et al. Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production. Health Res Policy Syst 18: 1–10 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00558-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NIHR [Internet]. Patient and public involvement policy. Available from: www.nice.org.uk/about/nice-communities/nice-and-the-public/public-involvement/public-involvement-programme/patient-public-involvement-policyGoogle Scholar
NIHR [Internet]. Best research for best health: the next chapter. Available from: https://arc-nwc.nihr.ac.uk/news/best-research-for-best-health-the-next-chapter/Google Scholar
Jackson, T. et al. Patient and public involvement in research: from tokenistic box ticking to valued team members. BMC Medicine 18: 1–7 (2020).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenhalgh, T. et al. Six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine. BMC Medicine 13: 1–11 (2015).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farr, M. et al. Co-producing knowledge in health and social care research: reflections on the challenges and ways to enable more equal relationships. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8(1): 105 (2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obermeyer, Z. et al. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science 366: 447–53 (2019). DOI: 10.1126/science.aax2342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, E. et al. An algorithmic approach to reducing unexplained pain disparities in underserved populations. Nat Med 27(1): 136–40 (2021).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ocloo, J. et al. Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety: a systematic review of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst 19: 1–21 (2021).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnstein, S R. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4): 216–24 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowker, GC. Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. MIT Press (2000).Google Scholar
Grotz, J, Ledgard, M, Poland, F. Patient and public involvement in health and social care research: an introduction to theory and practice. Springer Nature (2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhalgh, T. et al. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: systematic review and co‐design pilot. Health Expect 22(4): 785–801 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12888CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieberman, D. Exercised: the science of physical activity, rest and health. Penguin UK (2020).Google Scholar
Wallcraft, J, Schrank, B, Amering, M. Handbook of service user involvement in mental health research. Wiley (2009).Google Scholar
Canadian Institutes of Health Research [Internet]. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48413.htmlGoogle Scholar
Ennis, L, & Wykes, T. Impact of patient involvement in mental health research: longitudinal study. Br J Psychiatry 203(5): 381–6 (2013).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paul, C, & Holt, J. Involving the public in mental health and learning disability research: Can we, should we, do we?. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 24(8): 570–9 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, H. et al. Best practice framework for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in collaborative data analysis of qualitative mental health research: methodology development and refinement. BMC Psychiatry 18: 213 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1794-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lignou, S. et al. Co-production: an ethical model for mental health research?. Am J Bioeth 19(8): 49–51 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1619877CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, D. et al. ‘Widening cross-disciplinary research for mental health’: what is missing from the Research Councils UK mental health agenda?. Disabil Soc 33(3): 476–81 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2018.1423907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The PARTNERS2 writing collective. Exploring patient and public involvement (PPI) and co-production approaches in mental health research: learning from the PARTNERS2 research programme. Res Involv Engagem 6(1): 56 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00224-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, JP. et al. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci 22(11): 1359–66 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James Lind Alliance [Internet]. Available from: www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/priority-setting-partnerships/bipolarGoogle Scholar
Witham, MD. et al. Developing a roadmap to improve trial delivery for under-served groups: results from a UK multi-stakeholder process. Trials 21: 1–9 (2020).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D, Sibony, O, Sunstein, CR. Noise: a flaw in human judgment. Hachette UK; (2021 May 18).Google Scholar
Tomasev, N, McKee, KR, Kay, J, Mohamed, S. Fairness for unobserved characteristics: insights from technological impacts on queer communities. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society 2021, Jul 21 (pp. 254–65). https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowles, SE. et al. More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production. Res Involv Engagem 7(1): 34 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00262-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The PDF of this book
conforms to version 2.0 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic
(A)
level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.