ArticleBMC public health2014
Impact of gender on the decision to participate in a clinical trial: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Community engagement in research in sub-Saharan Africa: current practices, barriers, facilitators, ethical considerations and the role of gender - a systematic review.The Pan African medical journal · 2022Pooled it
- A public and patient consultation process as an aid to design a person-centred randomized clinical trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Trial
- An audit of questions asked by participants during the informed consent process for a phase 2/3 COVID-19 vaccine regulatory study at a tertiary referral centre.Journal of postgraduate medicineTrial
- More than a moment: Evolving decisions among eligible volunteers in phase 1 COVID-19 vaccine trials.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Article
- Clinical characteristics linked to persistent and emerging eating disorder risk trajectories in young people seeking mental health care.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2026Article
- A Virtual Trial to Identify Cardiovascular Biomarkers for Differentiating Diabetic and Hypertensive Kidney Disease.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Predictors of Clinical Trial Participation Among Older U.S. Adults With Multimorbidity: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- University students' interest in intervention research participation is associated with gender, age and symptoms of depression, general and social anxiety, panic disorder and self-harm.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- The Actual Condition of Chronic Constipation in Real-World Clinical Settings and Its Impact on Various Aspects of Daily Life.Digestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Observational
- Post-COVID fatigue disproportionately affects women: evidence from the DEFEAT Corona cohort.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Urine-based HIV-1 self-testing in China: A cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy and usability study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Antithrombotic drugs for acute coronary syndromes in women: sex-adjusted treatment and female representation in randomised clinical trials. A clinical consensus statement of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Rehabilitation needs, preferences, barriers, and facilitators of individuals with sepsis: a qualitative study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Article
- You've got mail: comparing individuals who do and do not provide DNA saliva samples by mail in a study of severe alcohol use disorder.Alcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire) · 2025Article
- Public Perception of Clinical Trials and Its Predictors Among Polish Adults.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Students' descriptions about experiences beneficial to mental health - a thematic analysis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Clinical Trial Participation Motivation: Role of Smoking Status.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Experiences, perceptions and ethical considerations of the malaria infection study in Thailand.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Does financial compensation matter for research participation in prevention trials in Tanzania? Perspectives of healthy volunteers.PloS one · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn order for Informed Consent to be ethical and valid each clinical trial participant must be able to make a voluntary decision to participate, free from pressure or coercion. Nonetheless, many factors may influence the decision reached, and such influences may be different for male and female volunteers. Being aware of these differences may help researches develop better processes for obtaining consent that safeguard the right of autonomy for all participants. The goal of this study was to evaluate potential gender-based differences in the factors influencing clinical trial participation.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted in the Northeast region of Minas Gerais, Brazil, in October 2011. A structured questionnaire was administered to 143 volunteers (48 male, 95 female) screened for participation in a clinical study of an investigational functional food with potential anthelminthic properties. Answers regarding their decision to participate in the study were compared, by gender, using chi-square and Mann Whitney tests. Odds ratios (OR) was used to measure association.
resultsA majority of subjects (58% of males, 59% of females) listed the desire to collaborate with the development of a product against parasitic worms as their main reason for participation. Females were significantly more likely to report a decision influenced by friends, family, or researchers (OR 3.14, 3.45, and 3.46 respectively, p < 0.005). Females were also significantly more likely to report a decision influenced by general altruistic considerations (OR 8.45, p < 0.005). There was no difference, by gender, in the report of decisions influenced by informational meetings, understanding of the disease, or the availability of medical treatments or exams. There was also no difference in knowledge of the rights of research participants.
conclusionStudy results indicate that there is a strong difference between male and female participants regarding social influences on the decision to participate in clinical research. Further research into the impact this may have on autonomy is warranted.
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.