ArticleJournal of community genetics2017
Engaging rural communities in genetic research: challenges and opportunities.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- REPRESENT recommendations: improving inclusion and trust in cancer early detection research.British journal of cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceived Barriers to Genetics and Precision Medicine Among Rural Participants in a Large Academic Biobank: A Mixed-Methods Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Healthcare experiences and the cycle of genomic healthcare disparities: A cross-sectional study utilizing the 'All of Us' research program.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Increasing participation of underrepresented groups in cancer early detection research: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Increasing participation of underrepresented groups in cancer early detection research: a scoping review.Research square · 2025Article
- Experiences of community engagement for SARS-COV-2 and COVID-19 community surveillance in a rural and urban population in South Western Uganda.African health sciences · 2024Article
- The application of long-read sequencing in clinical settings.Human genomics · 2023Review
- Engaging publics in biobanking and genetic research governance - a literature review towards informing practice in India.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- Public perception of predictive cancer genetic testing and research in Oregon.Journal of genetic counseling · 2020Article
- Perspectives on communication and engagement with regard to collecting biospecimens and family health histories for cancer research in a rural Alaska Native community.Journal of community genetics · 2019Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers towards genetic testing across three rural Illinois communities.Journal of community genetics · 2019Article
- An Approach to Integrating Health Disparities within Undergraduate Biomedical Engineering Education.Annals of biomedical engineering · 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Statistical analyses of health and disease in rural communities is frequently limited by low sample counts. Still, some studies indicate increased risk for some diseases even after adjustment for known risk factors. It has been hypothesized that the context of community formation in rural areas facilitates the propagation of genetic founder effects-potentially impacting disease susceptibility. However, outright examination of genetic diversity in such communities has not been performed. Our objective was to engage otherwise research-inexperienced rural communities of largely European descent in genomic research in the context of cancer susceptibility. From September 2015 to February 2016, we implemented a systematic process of progressive community engagement. This iterative method sought project buy-in from first the town mayor, then village council. If approved by both, a focus group of community members examined how residents might view the research, informed consent and specimen collection, and issues of privacy. We were successful in engaging three of the four communities approached for the research project. There was universal enthusiasm for the project by all mayors and village councils. The focus groups' main point of discussion involved wording in the informed consent, with little concern regarding the research question or privacy. Perhaps contrary to popular thought, we found each community we approached to be both welcoming and enthusiastic about collaborating in research on genomic diversity. The systematic method of engagement did much to preserve community respect and autonomy and facilitated buy-in.
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.