ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2018
Readability of Human Subjects Training Materials for Research.
Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Behind the scenes of research ethics committee oversight: a qualitative research study with committee chairs in the Middle East and North Africa region.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- A randomized implementation trial to increase adoption of evidence-informed consent practices.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Human Research Protection Training Requirements: Alternatives for Community Researchers at CTSA-Funded Research Institutions.Ethics & human researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Institutions are required to ensure that persons involved in human subjects research receive appropriate human subjects protections training and education. Several organizations use the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) program to fulfill training requirements. Most researchers find the CITI program too complex for community members who collaborate with researchers. This study aimed to determine the readability of CITI modules most frequently used in community-based participatory research (CBPR). The mean readability level of the CITI modules is 14.8 grade; CBPR readability levels ranged from 11.6 to 12.0 grade (sixth- to eighth-grade reading level is recommended). With a baseline objective measure, modifications can be made to improve the plain language quality and understandability of human subjects training modules for community members.
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.