ArticleClinical and translational science2014
Community member and faith leader perspectives on the process of building trusting relationships between communities and researchers.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community engagement strategies for genomic studies in Africa: a review of the literature.BMC medical ethics · 2015Review
- "Atlanta Is Like Wakanda … but With Real Big, Big Issues": A Focus Group Study of Community Strengths and Health Issues in Diverse Groups in Atlanta, Georgia.Family & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the first phase of this research, we conducted, audio-recorded, and transcribed seven focus groups with more than 50 English- or Spanish-speaking women of childbearing age. Qualitative analysis revealed the following themes: (1) expectation that participation would involve relationships based on trust that is built over time and impacted by cultural factors; (2) perceived characteristics of research staff that would help facilitate the development of trusting relationships; (3) perceptions about the location of the visits that may affect trust; (4) perceptions of a research study and trust for the institution conducting the study may affect trust; (5) connecting the study to larger communities, including faith communities, could affect trust and willingness to participate. In the second phase of this research, we conducted, recorded, transcribed, and analyzed interviews with leaders from diverse faith communities to explore the potential for research partnerships between researchers and faith communities. In addition to confirming themes identified in focus groups, faith leaders described an openness to research partnerships between the university and faith communities and considerations for the formation of these partnerships. Faith leaders noted the importance of finding common ground with researchers, establishing and maintaining trusting relationships, and committing to open, bidirectional communication.
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.