Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27134486›Full record

ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2016

Knowledge and Perception about Clinical Research Shapes Behavior: Face to Face Survey in Korean General Public.

Yun Jung Choi, Sung-Ho Beck, Woon Yong Kang, Soyoung Yoo, Seong-Yoon Kim, Ji Sung Lee, Tal Burt, Tae Won Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Development and Evaluation of the Clinical Trial HEalth Knowledge and Beliefs Scale (CHEKS).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  4. Knowledge, attitude, and perception of public about participation in COVID-19 clinical trials: a study from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. How Cancer Patients Perceive Clinical Trials (CTs) in the Era of CTs: Current Perception and Its Differences Between Common and Rare Cancers.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Yun Jung ChoiAsan Medical Center, Clinical Trial Center, Seoul, Korea .ORCID 0000-0002-1648-9264
Sung-Ho BeckAsan Medical Center, Clinical Trial Center, Seoul, Korea .ORCID 0000-0003-4540-3041
Woon Yong KangAsan Medical Center, Clinical Trial Center, Seoul, Korea .ORCID 0000-0002-4839-5342
Soyoung YooAsan Medical Center, Human Research Protection Center, Seoul, Korea .ORCID 0000-0002-2953-508X
Seong-Yoon KimAsan Medical Center, Human Research Protection Center, Seoul, Korea.; Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-1077-6289
Ji Sung LeeAsan Medical Center, Clinical Research Center, Seoul, Korea .ORCID 0000-0001-8194-3462
Tal BurtDuke Global Proof-of-Concept (POC) Research Network, Duke Clinical Research Unit (DCRU) & Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI), Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5853-6110
Tae Won KimAsan Medical Center, Clinical Trial Center, Seoul, Korea.; Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-9522-1997

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Considering general public as potential patients, identifying factors that hinder public participation poses great importance, especially in a research environment where demands for clinical trial participants outpace the supply. Hence, the aim of this study was to evaluate knowledge and perception about clinical research in general public. A total of 400 Seoul residents with no previous experience of clinical trial participation were selected, as representative of population in Seoul in terms of age and sex. To minimize selection bias, every fifth passer-by was invited to interview, and if in a cluster, person on the very right side was asked. To ensure the uniform use of survey, written instructions have been added to the questionnaire. Followed by pilot test in 40 subjects, the survey was administered face-to-face in December 2014. To investigate how perception shapes behavior, we compared perception scores in those who expressed willingness to participate and those who did not. Remarkably higher percentage of responders stated that they have heard of clinical research, and knew someone who participated (both, P < 0.001) compared to India. Yet, the percentage of responders expressed willingness to participate was 39.3%, a significantly lower rate than the result of the India (58.9% vs. 39.3%, P < 0.001). Treatment benefit was the single most influential reason for participation, followed by financial gain. Concern about safety was the main reason for refusal, succeeded by fear and lack of trust. Public awareness and educational programs addressing these negative perceptions and lack of knowledge will be effective in enhancing public engaged in clinical research.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePerceptionAdultAgedAwarenessClinical Trials as TopicDemographyFemaleHumansIndiaInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedRepublic of KoreaSurveys and QuestionnairesAwareness of Clinical TrialClinical Research PerceptionClinical Trial ParticipationPatient EnrollmentPerception of Clinical Trial

Identifiers

PMID27134486
PMCPMC4835590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.