ArticleQualitative health research2013
Women's experiences in a community-based participatory research randomized controlled trial.
Article in Qualitative health research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Recruitment, experience, and retention among women with HIV and hazardous drinking participating in a clinical trial.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Child diet and health outcomes of the simple suppers program: a 10-week, 2-group quasi-experimental family meals trial.BMC public health · 2019Article
- Synthesizing Marketing, Community Engagement, and Systems Science Approaches for Advancing Translational Research.ANS. Advances in nursing scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Integrating community-based participatory research (CBPR) into traditional study designs can enhance outcomes in studies with disadvantaged groups. Little is known, however, about study participants' experiences with these approaches, the underlying processes involved in creating more positive outcomes, and whether undesirable effects on study outcomes occur simultaneously. We conducted focus group interviews with 31 disadvantaged women who participated in a CBPR-driven randomized controlled trial (RCT) both to explore their study experiences and to obtain their interpretations of select study findings. Using dimensional analysis, we found the tailored health questionnaire, treatment by study staff members, and RCT participants' understandings of and responses to randomization were salient to what women described as transformative experiences that occurred over the course of the RCT. These findings have implications for understanding how CBPR and non-CBPR aspects of interventions and study designs have the potential to affect both process and endpoint study outcomes.
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.