Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23134938›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2012

Lessons learned obtaining informed consent in research with vulnerable populations in community health center settings.

Heather E Riden, Kya N Grooms, Cheryl R Clark, Laura R Cohen, Josh Gagne, Dora A Tovar, Mark J Ommerborn, Piper S Orton, Paula A Johnson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Heather E RidenDivision of Women’s Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, USA.
Kya N Grooms
Cheryl R Clark
Laura R Cohen
Josh Gagne
Dora A Tovar
Mark J Ommerborn
Piper S Orton
Paula A Johnson

Funding

PHS HHS ASTWH070011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo improve equity in access to medical research, successful strategies are needed to recruit diverse populations. Here, we examine experiences of community health center (CHC) staff who guided an informed consent process to overcome recruitment barriers in a medical record review study.

methodsWe conducted ten semi-structured interviews with CHC staff members. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and structurally and thematically coded. We used NVivo, an ethnographic data management software program, to analyze themes related to recruitment challenges.

resultsCHC interviewees reported that a key challenge to recruitment included the difficult balance between institutional review board (IRB) requirements for informed consent, and conveying an appropriate level of risk to patients. CHC staff perceived that the requirements of IRB certification itself posed a barrier to allowing diverse staff to participate in recruitment efforts. A key barrier to recruitment also included the lack of updated contact information on CHC patients. CHC interviewees reported that the successes they experienced reflected an alignment between study aims and CHC goals, and trusted relationships between CHCs and staff and the patients they recruited.

conclusionsMaking IRB training more accessible to CHC-based staff, improving consent form clarity for participants, and developing processes for routinely updating patient information would greatly lower recruitment barriers for diverse populations in health services research.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchInformed ConsentVulnerable PopulationsCommunity Health CentersHumans

Identifiers

PMID23134938
PMCPMC3532200

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.