ArticleEuropean journal for person centered healthcare2017
Trust and the Ethical Conduct of Community-Engaged Research.
Article in European journal for person centered healthcare, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agile nudge implementation to improve minority recruitment in community-based research.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the participatory rural appraisal training-hands-on for medical (PRATHaM) students.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Study Navigation and Enrollment in a Community Sample: Does Generational Cohort Matter?Journal of intergenerational relationships · 2023Article
- Advancing health equity through integrated biology and population health research: A community-based sample cortisol feasibility and exploratory study.Comprehensive psychoneuroendocrinology · 2022Article
- Challenges and Lessons Learned in the Development of a Participatory Learning and Action Intervention to Tackle Antibiotic Resistance: Experiences From Northern Vietnam.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Call to Action for Enhanced Equity and Inclusion in Cannabis Research.Cannabis and cannabinoid research · 2021Article
- Article
- Researcher and study participants' perspectives of consent in clinical studies in four referral hospitals in Vietnam.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- [Effects of coffee consumption on salivary cortisol and alpha amylase in young adults].Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)Article
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
Community-engaged research (CEnR), which emphasizes equal participation of academic and community partners in research, seeks to improve public trust in science. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of rigorous empirical research on trust as a core component of ethical conduct of CEnR. Drawing on data collected from a project on the ethics of CEnR, this commentary discusses benefits and risks of trust and uses the concept of embeddedness to explain how public trust in science may be increased. We argue that in developing and maintaining trust, partners must balance scientific rigor with community relevance and cultural appropriateness of research. They must strike a balance between working with the same limited pool of trusted partners, which can speed research but slow wider acceptance of science, and extending their trust to new partners, which can broaden acceptance of science but slow research. Practitioners may facilitate the development of trust in science by gradually expanding the pool of partners they choose their collaborators from.
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.