Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27686332›Full record

ArticleResearch in nursing & health2017

Can Lay Community Advisors Improve the Clarity of Research Participant Recruitment Materials and Increase the Likelihood of Participation?

Barbara Bowers, Nora Jacobson, Anna Krupp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors.

Barbara BowersCharlotte Jane and Ralph Rodefer Chair, Helen Denne Schulte Professor, Associate Dean for Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 5133 Signe Scott Cooper Hall, 701 Highland Ave., Madison, WI 53705.
Nora JacobsonSenior Scientist/Qualitative Methodologist, Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Community Academic Partnerships Program, School of Nursing, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Anna KruppPhD Candidate, School of Nursing, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.

Funding

Institutional Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000427 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI DREZNER, MARC KENNETH · 2012 to 2016
$32.2M
INSTITUTIONAL CTSA (UW-MADISON): CLINICAL TRIALSUL1RR025011 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI DREZNER, MARC KENNETH · 2007 to 2011
$29.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000427NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025011
6 · The paper itself

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

Biomedical ResearchCultural DiversityPatient SelectionResearch DesignCommunity ParticipationEthnicityHealthcare DisparitiesHumansInformed ConsentQualitative ResearchSocial Classcommunity engagementcultural diversityhealth disparitiesmixed methodsparticipant recruitmentparticipatory research

Identifiers

PMID27686332
PMCPMC5632932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.