Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31891880›Full record

ArticleJournal of psychiatric research2020

Negative association of perceived risk and willingness to participate in innovative psychiatric research protocols.

Tenzin Tsungmey, Jane Paik Kim, Laura B Dunn, Katie Ryan, Kyle Lane-McKinley, Laura Weiss Roberts

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of psychiatric research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tenzin TsungmeyDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, School of Medicine, 401 Quarry Road, Stanford, CA, USA, 94305-5717.
Jane Paik KimDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, School of Medicine, 401 Quarry Road, Stanford, CA, USA, 94305-5717. Electronic address: janepkim@stanford.edu.
Laura B DunnDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, School of Medicine, 401 Quarry Road, Stanford, CA, USA, 94305-5717.
Katie RyanDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, School of Medicine, 401 Quarry Road, Stanford, CA, USA, 94305-5717.
Kyle Lane-McKinleyDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, School of Medicine, 401 Quarry Road, Stanford, CA, USA, 94305-5717.
Laura Weiss RobertsDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, School of Medicine, 401 Quarry Road, Stanford, CA, USA, 94305-5717.
Stanford University · US

Funding

Enabling ethical participation in innovative neuroscience on mental illness and addiction: towards a new screening tool enhancing informed consent for transformative research on the human brainR01MH114856 · NIMH · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI ROBERTS, LAURA W · 2017 to 2020
$2.2M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH114856
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychiatric researchers grapple with concerns that individuals with mental illness may be less likely to appreciate risks of research participation, particularly compared to people not suffering from mental illness. Therefore, empirical studies that directly compare the perspectives of such individuals are needed. In addition, it is important to evaluate perspectives regarding varied types of research protocols, particularly as innovative psychiatric research protocols emerge. In this pilot study, respondents with a mood disorder (n = 25) as well as respondents without a mood disorder (n = 55) were recruited using Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform. These respondents were surveyed regarding four psychiatric research projects (i.e., experimental medication [pill form]; non-invasive magnetic brain stimulation; experimental medication [intravenous infusion]; and implantation of a device in the brain). Regardless of health status, respondents rated the four research protocols as somewhat to highly risky. The brain-device implant protocol was seen as the most risky, while the magnetic brain stimulation project was viewed as "somewhat risky". Respondents, on average and regardless of health status, rated their willingness at or below "somewhat willing." Respondents were least willing to participate in the brain-device implant protocol, whereas they were "somewhat willing" to participate in the magnetic brain stimulation protocol. Trust in medical research was negatively associated with perceived risk of research protocols. Perceived risk was negatively associated with willingness to participate, even when adjusting for potential confounders, suggesting that attunement to risk crosses diagnostic, gender, and ethnic categories, and is more salient to research decision-making than trust in medical research and dispositional optimism. The findings of this study may offer reassurance about the underlying decision-making processes of individuals considering participation in innovative neuroscience studies.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchHealth StatusHumansPilot ProjectsSurveys and QuestionnairesParticipation willingnessProfessionalismResearch ethicsResearch protocolTrust

Identifiers

PMID31891880
PMCPMC7243412
OpenAlexW2994975777

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.