ArticleBMC medical ethics2015
Giving samples or "getting checked": measuring conflation of observational biospecimen research and clinical care in Latino communities.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2015. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- "I passed the test!" Evidence of diagnostic misconception in the recruitment of population controls for an H3Africa genomic study in Cape Town, South Africa.BMC medical ethics · 2017Article
- Biospecimen Sharing Among Hispanic Women in a Safety-Net Clinic: Implications for the Precision Medicine Initiative.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2017Article
- Community Perceptions of Biobanking Participation: A Qualitative Study among Mexican-Americans in Three Texas Cities.Public health genomics · 2017Article
- Development and validation of the biobanking attitudes and knowledge survey-Spanish (BANKS-SP).Journal of community genetics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExpectations of receiving personal health information as a fringe benefit of biospecimen donation-termed diagnostic misconception-are increasingly documented. We developed an instrument measuring conflation of observational biospecimen-based research and clinical care for use with Latino communities, who may be particularly affected by diagnostic misconception due to limited health care access.
methodsThe instrument was developed using prior qualitative research, revised through cognitive interviewing and expert review, and field tested in a convenience sample of 150 Latino adults in Eastern Washington State. It was further refined through exploratory factor analysis and validated against existing measures of genetic knowledge and researcher trust.
resultsThe final instrument demonstrated high internal consistency, evidence of content and construct validity, and no floor and ceiling effects. Individuals who were unemployed, spoke only Spanish, had no health insurance, received health care outside of traditional venues, and had good self-rated health received higher scores, indicating greater conflation of biospecimen-based research and clinical care.
conclusionsThe ability to systematically measure beliefs related to diagnostic misconception will help facilitate ethically-informed efforts to recruit Latinos into biospecimen-based research studies.
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.