ArticleContemporary clinical trials2010
Increasing Asian American women's research participation: the Asian grocery store-based cancer education program.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResearch study participants with diverse characteristics produce the most generalizable outcomes, but recruiting heterogeneous samples is difficult.
methodsThis pilot study tests whether Asian women (N=1079) with diverse language proficiencies, who were personally recruited to one study by a linguistically and culturally aligned recruiter, would enroll in another study with a single mailed invitation in English.
resultsThe 134 participants in the second study represented 17.2% of those 779 women who had completed both baseline and follow-up surveys in the original study, making this characteristic the best predictor of future study participation. Of the 303 women in the first study who said they would be willing to participate in future studies, 17% (51) participated in the second study. Of the 733 who said they would not be willing to participate in future studies, 11% (83) participated. However, given the larger size of this group, researchers may recruit a greater absolute number of participants from it. While this rate of participation was less than the 25% rate achieved in the first study, the second study's single, mailed English language invitation was likely a barrier to participation.
conclusionSecuring IRB-approval to invite prior study participants from traditionally underrepresented communities to a new study is a strategy investigators can use to increase the diversity of their samples. Further research is warranted to determine whether Asian women who have participated in one study might also become effective recruiters for future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.