ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2019
Public views regarding the responsibility of patients, clinicians, and institutions to participate in research in the United States.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stakeholder perspectives on data sharing from pragmatic clinical trials: Unanticipated challenges for meeting emerging requirements.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- Learning healthcare systems in cardiology: A qualitative interview study on ethical dilemmas of a learning healthcare system.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- Reimagining community relationships for organizational learning: a scoping review with implications for a learning health system.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- French Public Familiarity and Attitudes toward Clinical Research during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Public attitudes toward an authorization for contact program for clinical research.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
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
backgroundThe need for more and better evidence to inform clinical decision making among all stakeholders has fueled calls for creating learning healthcare systems. The successful realization of a learning healthcare system seems to assume that various parties have a responsibility to participate in learning activities, including research. The objective of this study was to determine whether members of the general public perceive an ethical responsibility to participate in pragmatic clinical research that would be inherent to a learning health system.
methodsA total of 2994 English-speaking adults completed a nationally representative online survey.
resultsAbout two-thirds of respondents were relatively neutral regarding a responsibility for themselves and others to participate in research; the remainder felt that they and others did not have a responsibility to participate in research.
conclusionsEfforts to justify and develop a robust learning health system in an ethically acceptable fashion need to take these findings into account.
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.