Inclusive Research Strategy Development

Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and Clinical Research Facility developed an Inclusive Research Strategy to embed inclusivity in experimental medicine research. The reported design was an organisational strategy-development study based on co-production and iterative stakeholder engagement. Its setting included Manchester BRC/CRF, partner organisations, public contributors, and wider stakeholders; a sample size was not located in the available extraction. The work combined Inclusive Research Methods, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, and Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement teams, with workshops and one-to-one consultations informing development. pmid:42748171

Evidence

The strategy was developed in the second round of NIHR funding for Manchester BRC/CRF, 2022–2027. During that round, research inclusivity was organised into three distinct functions—EDI, PPIE, and IRM—each supported by a dedicated team and overseen by the Inclusive Research Oversight Board. The board’s stated role is to provide strategic governance and coherence across the BRC/CRF infrastructures in relation to research inclusivity. pmid:42748171

Stakeholder engagement identified varying levels of understanding of Inclusive Research and highlighted a need for accessible, evidence-informed approaches. The resulting strategy has five strategic principles: mapping inequalities and protected characteristics; training and capacity building; working with communities and partners; establishing effective routes to delivery; and using and creating Inclusive Research Methods. These principles frame inclusion as activity spanning organisational systems and the research lifecycle, rather than as a single recruitment-stage intervention. pmid:42748171

The paper situates the strategy in experimental medicine, where specialist facilities, multiple visits or procedures, narrowly defined eligibility criteria, and complex information about risk, uncertainty, and potential benefit can create practical, linguistic, financial, cultural, and trust-related barriers for groups already under-served by health research. It discusses incorporating inclusive approaches into feasibility assessment, site selection, recruitment planning, consent processes, and participant support as a way experimental medicine can become more accessible, acceptable, and relevant to intended communities. pmid:42748171

Analysis — Organisational implementation

The central contribution is an operational model for building research inclusivity into infrastructure, governance, and methods. Co-production linked teams with distinct remits, while workshops and individual consultations supplied feedback on how Inclusive Research was understood and what implementation needed. The five principles translate that feedback into categories of work, from mapping inequalities to building capability and working with communities. The Oversight Board adds an accountability mechanism intended to connect these activities across BRC/CRF structures. This is therefore most directly useful as a description of organisational implementation: it identifies roles, engagement processes, governance, and strategic domains that another research infrastructure could examine when designing its own approach. pmid:42748171

The paper also emphasizes conditions for implementation: alignment with existing organisational strategies, clarity, accountability, responsiveness, co-production, and attention to power dynamics. Those themes matter because a strategy can articulate inclusive aims without resolving who makes decisions, how stakeholder input is incorporated, or how practices are coordinated across research stages. The reported approach addresses these implementation questions through the IRM, EDI, and PPIE functions and board-level governance. Its claims about accessibility, acceptability, and relevance are framed as potential consequences of inclusive approaches, not as reported comparative effect estimates. pmid:42748171

Limitations

The report concerns development and operationalisation of an organisational strategy, so its evidence is most directly about process, stakeholder engagement, governance, and intended implementation. The available extraction does not locate a sample size, and the excerpted material describes varying stakeholder understanding and the need for ongoing evaluation and adaptation. These extraction gaps should not be read as evidence that information was not reported elsewhere in the study. pmid:42748171

The authors also describe barriers that may arise from experimental-medicine requirements, especially for groups already under-served by health research. They state that flexibility is needed to adapt to emerging national guidance and continuing evaluation cycles. Accordingly, the paper supports a strategy-development and implementation framing; statistical significance, where relevant in other research designs, would not by itself establish clinical significance. pmid:42748171