ArticleIRB
Research on Medical Practices: Why Patients Consider Participating and the Investigational Misconception.
Article in IRB. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Empirical research related to the ethics of pragmatic clinical trials: A scoping review.Learning health systems · 2026Article
- Eliciting Patient Preferences for Pragmatic Critical Care Trials: A Qualitative Study.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2025Article
- Towards better enrollment decision-making for perinatal clinical research: Reconsidering recruitment and consent processes to support family values and preferences.Seminars in perinatology · 2025Review
- The ethical value of consulting community members in non-emergency trials conducted with waivers of informed consent for research.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2025Article
- Public Attitudes toward Consent When Research Is Integrated into Care-Any "Ought" from All the "Is"?The Hastings Center report · 2021Article
- Justifying Investigator/Clinician Consent When The Physician-Patient Relationship Can Support Better Research Decision-Making.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding how patients decide whether to enroll in research can help improve educational materials, protocols, and recruitment rates. However, little is known about patients' willingness to participate in research on medical practices (ROMP), or studies comparing interventions within usual care. We assessed willingness to consider participating in ROMP by surveying 1095 adults in the United States, of whom 834 answered at least one open-ended question about their reasons for being willing or unwilling to consider participating in two scenarios involving ROMP. Most respondents were willing to consider participating in the research scenarios. The most commonly cited reasons for being willing to consider participating included benefit to others and oneself; the top reasons for being unwilling to consider participating included belief that the research was unsafe and an unfavorable view of experimentation. Responses also revealed misconceptions about ROMP among both those who were willing and unwilling to consider participating. Because these misconceptions may present an obstacle to recruiting participants in ROMP, there may be a need for educational initiatives to clarify the nature of these types of studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30387977PMC7374557What 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.