ArticleHealth promotion practice2020
A Community-Based Approach to Biospecimen Collection Among Pacific Islanders.
Article in Health promotion practice, 2020. 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.
- "Being proactive, not reactive": exploring perceptions of genetic testing among White, Latinx, and Pacific Islander Populations.Journal of community genetics · 2021Article
- Opportunities to Improve Women's Health: Engaging Racial/Ethnic Diverse Women to Provide Biospecimens for Research.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2021Article
- Public perception of predictive cancer genetic testing and research in Oregon.Journal of genetic counseling · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study tested the feasibility of collecting saliva samples from Pacific Islanders (PIs) via a community-based participatory research approach. Collection of saliva samples were conducted by trained and trusted PI community leaders at various partner sites. A total of 214 saliva samples were donated by PIs living in Southern California, more than half of whom were females between the ages of 18 and 35 years. Donors indicated that they donated because they wanted to help science and their community. A majority of donors reported a very positive experience with the donation process and were willing to donate saliva and hair samples in the future. The positive findings of this article highlight the importance of community input and participation.
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.