ArticleResearch in nursing & health2017
Can Lay Community Advisors Improve the Clarity of Research Participant Recruitment Materials and Increase the Likelihood of Participation?
Article in Research in nursing & health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global Insights on the Involvement of Ethnic Minority Populations in Health and Social Care Research Priority Setting: A Systematic Scoping Review.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- A Narrative Review of the Regional Prospective Observational Research in Tuberculosis International Consortium: Sharing Diverse Data and Specimens in the Fight Against Tuberculosis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026Review
- The RIC Recruitment & Retention Materials Toolkit - a resource for developing community-informed study materials.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Integrating community voices in the research continuum: Perspectives on a consultation service.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Improving Community Advisory Board Engagement in Precision Medicine Research to Reduce Health Disparities.Journal of health disparities research and practice · 2019Article
- Best Practices for Community-Engaged Research with Pacific Islander Communities in the US and USAPI: A Scoping Review.Journal of health care for the poor and underserved · 2019Article
- A Community Engagement Advisory Board as a strategy to improve research engagement and build institutional capacity for community-engaged research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2018Article
- Tailored Explanation: A Strategy to Minimize Nonresponse in Demographic Items Among Low-income Racial and Ethnic Minorities.Survey practice · 2017Article
- Can Lay Community Advisors Improve the Clarity of Research Participant Recruitment Materials and Increase the Likelihood of Participation?Research in nursing & health · 2017Article
- A Case Study of Engaging Hard-to-Reach Participants in the Research Process: Community Advisors on Research Design and Strategies (CARDS)®.Research in nursing & health · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite decades of effort, lower income people and ethnic minorities continue to be underrepresented as participants in health research. A group of racially and ethnically diverse, lower income community members (Community Advisors on Research Design and Strategies: CARDS®) was trained to review study designs and procedures and provide recommendations to researchers for increasing participation and making research materials more understandable to members of underrepresented communities. In this mixed methods study, one participant group (n = 55) was shown research materials (recruitment documents and a consent form) developed by a research team and approved by the local IRB. A second group (n = 45) was shown the same materials after they had also been reviewed and revised by CARDS. Interviews, which included both fixed-response and open-ended questions, were used to assess reactions of participants in both groups to the materials, including their hypothetical willingness to volunteer for the research described. Group differences were examined using the Chi-square distribution test. Proportional difference effect sizes were estimated using arcsine transformation. The qualitative data were subjected to conventional content analysis. Participants in the group shown the recruitment materials revised by CARDS were more likely to say they understood the documents, more likely to ask for more information about the study, and more likely to say they would participate in the research. Results of content analysis suggested a four-phase sequential process for deciding whether to participate in the research. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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.