ArticleThe American journal of the medical sciences2018
Research Ethics in Behavioral Interventions Among Special Populations: Lessons From the Peer Approaches to Lupus Self-Management Study.
Article in The American journal of the medical sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Peer Support in Rheumatic Diseases: A Narrative Literature Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Review
- 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResearch involving a homogenous cohort of participants belonging to a special population must make considerations to recruit and protect the subjects. This study analyses the ethical considerations made in the peer approaches to lupus self-management project which pilot tested a peer mentoring intervention for African American women with systemic lupus erythematosus.
methodsConsiderations made at the outset of the project are described and their justifications and reasoning are given. Through analysis of feedback from a postintervention focus group and mentors' logs, implications on program outcomes and participant satisfaction are discussed.
resultsFeedback indicated the importance of recruiting and training capable mentors, consistent contact from study staff to avert adverse events and avert fear or mistrust and careful consideration that must go into the pairing of mentors and mentees. Participant feedback also indicated that sensitive topics must be addressed carefully to prevent distress and dissatisfaction.
conclusionsApplying the lessons learned from this work as well as the considerations that proved successful may improve the contextualization and ethical conduct of behavioral interventions in special populations resulting in improved tailoring and acceptability toward historically underserved individuals.
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.