Abstract
Background Platform trials are an efficient trial design which enable testing of multiple interventions simultaneously. They could advance knowledge of treatments for intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH). We aimed to investigate the views of clinicians involved in stroke research on recruitment to a future platform trial for ICH.
Methods Between April and July 2025, we conducted a UK-wide online survey of clinicians actively involved in stroke research using convenience sampling through professional organisations. Participants considered factors related to the consent process and research environment and could provide optional free text responses about additional barriers or facilitators to recruitment. We used descriptive statistics for quantitative data and content analysis for qualitative data.
Results Among 73 respondents, 46 (63%) were female, 36 (50%) were stroke physicians, 24 (34%) nurses, 6 (8%) allied health professionals, and 7 (10%) were in other roles. 36 (49%) had >20 years’ clinical experience, 45 (61%) reported spending <10% of their role in research. 66 (91%) thought that a platform trial would be a good option for testing interventions for patients with stroke due to ICH. Across 11 modifiable factors, clinicians most frequently rated perceived importance of the research question as a facilitator of recruitment (94%), while clinician preference for specific treatments was most frequently rated as a barrier (48%). Two themes emerged from free text responses: study design and infrastructure. Regarding study design respondents perceived consent procedures (n=9), study materials (n=8), study procedures (n=8), eligibility assessment (n=6), the research question (n=3) and randomization (n=3) as important for a future platform trial. Regarding infrastructure, emergent factors were staffing (n=17), local research culture and capacity (n=9), research governance and delivery (n=6), and training (n=6).
Conclusion The overwhelming majority of respondents from the UK clinical stroke community supported a platform trial for ICH, although the influence of survey responder bias is unknown.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Research Ethics Committee of the University of Edinburgh gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
