ArticleEthnicity & disease2019
Convergence Despite Divergence: Views of Academic and Community Stakeholders about the Ethics of Community-Engaged Research.
Article in Ethnicity & disease, 2019. 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.
- Health equity in action: using community-engaged research to update an intervention promoting a healthy home food environment to Black/African American families.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2024Article
- Power Sharing, Capacity Building, and Evolving Roles in ELSI: The Center for the Ethics of Indigenous Genomic Research.Collaborations (Coral Gables, Fla.) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Stakeholder engagement and community-engaged research (CEnR) are recognized as approaches necessary to promote health equity. Few studies have examined variations in stakeholder perspectives on research ethics despite the potential for meaningful differences. Our study examines the association between stakeholders' characteristics and their perception of the importance of 15 stakeholder-developed CEnR ethical statements. Design: Quantitative analysis of close-ended Delphi survey. Participants: We recruited a national, non-random, purposive sample of people who were eligible if they endorsed conducting CEnR in public health or biomedical fields. Participants were recruited from publicly available information, professional email distributions, and snowball sampling. Main Outcome Measures: We designed our close-ended Delphi survey from the results of 15 CEnR ethical statements, which were developed from a consensus development workshop with academic and community stakeholders. Results: 259 participants completed the Delphi survey. The results demonstrated that stakeholders' characteristics (affiliation, ethnicity, number of CEnR relationships, and duration of CEnR partnerships) were not associated with their perception of the importance of 15 ethical statements. Conclusions: The strong agreement among stakeholders on these broad, aspirational ethical statements can help guide partnerships toward ethical decisions and actions. Continued research about variability among stakeholders' ethics perspectives is needed to bolster the capacity of CEnR to contribute to health equity.
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.