ArticleClinical and translational science2015
Public Interest in Medical Research Participation: Does It Matter if Patients or Community Members Have Helped Design the Study?
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2015. 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.
- Survey of Awareness and Perceptions of Canadians on the Benefits and Risks of Clinical Trials.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe determined national levels of public participation in medical research study design. We compared public interest in medical research participation (MRP) in studies overall, versus studies explicitly designed with public involvement.
methodCross-sectional household survey of US population in June 2013. Descriptive statistics estimated participation in medical research study design. Chi-square test compared levels of interest in MRP if respondent knew patients or community members helped design the study.
resultsOf 2,048 respondents (participation rate 60%), 5% knew someone who had helped design a medical research study. There was no association between having known someone or personal participation in study design and willingness to engage in MRP. Although the overall proportion of respondents who would consider MRP initially (51%) was similar to the proportion who would consider MRP with community member involvement in study design (49%), the changes in respondents' views across the different scenarios were significantly greater than what would have been expected by chance.
conclusionsWe found similar levels of interest in MRP whether or not the public is involved in medical research study design. This finding may indicate that public involvement in study design, like community-based participatory research, may not affect overall rates of MRP.
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.