ArticleJournal of human genetics2016
Survey of motivation to participate in a birth cohort.
Article in Journal of human genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a birth cohort study during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Provision of educational events and subsequent questionnaire response rates in a large-scale birth cohort study from Japan.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Experiences of parents whose children participated in a longitudinal follow-up study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- A cross-sectional survey examining motivation and beliefs to participating in a web-based prospective cohort study on nutrition and health among individuals with a low socioeconomic status.BMC public health · 2020Article
- A training and education program for genome medical research coordinators in the genome cohort study of the Tohoku Medical Megabank Organization.BMC medical education · 2019Article
- "Telling" and assent: Parents' attitudes towards children's participation in a birth cohort study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018Article
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
For a longitudinal prospective cohort study to be successful, participants' motivation to provide information must be maintained. Therefore, this study aimed to identify items that effectively promote participants' motivation. Questionnaires were mailed to 4541 mothers and expectant mothers in Chiba Prefecture, Japan who participated in a nationwide birth cohort. A total of 2387 (52.6%) responses were received. The following items were identified as primary motivating factors among our cohort: "benefits to the participants' children", "monetary compensation" and "contribution to a better future environment". More than 30% of the respondents expressed a lack of understanding regarding the study purpose and requirements for participation. About 14% were concerned about the leakage of personal information, and 13% felt burdened by having to make a long-term commitment to the study. Cluster analysis identified four groups, two of which, one with extremely low levels of motivation and the other motivated by only money or goods, lacked an understanding of the study and tended to be concerned about the associated risks and burdens. Participants in these groups were considered to be at a high risk of dropout. Therefore, implementing measures to provide participants with a better understanding of cohort studies could lead to more successful results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27251007What 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.