ArticlePublic health genomics2019
"I'm a Little More Trusting": Components of Trustworthiness in the Decision to Participate in Genomics Research for African Americans.
Article in Public health genomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic literature review of the 'commercialisation effect' on public attitudes towards biobank and genomic data repositories.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024Pooled it
- "There's no representation": a qualitative study of attitudes and motivations towards genomic research participation among Australian South Asians.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Understanding Inclusion and Participation of People From Black African Diaspora Communities in Health and Care Research: A Realist Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Review
- Employing effective recruitment and retention strategies to engage a diverse pediatric population in genomics research.American journal of human genetics · 2024Article
- "I just don't know enough": Australian perspectives on community involvement in health and medical research.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- "My Blood, You Know, My Biology Being out There…": Consent and Participant Control of Biological Samples.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2024Article
- The need for an intersectionality framework in precision medicine research.American journal of human genetics · 2023Article
- A conceptual analysis of public opinion regarding genome research in Japan.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- "I Want to Know Everything ... ": The Return of Research Results and the Importance of Transparency in the Acceptability of Lumbar Punctures for African American Older Adults.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2023Article
- Promoting Inclusive Recruitment: a Qualitative Study of Black Adults' Decision to Participate in Genetic Research.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2022Article
- Beyond race: Recruitment of diverse participants in clinical genomics research for rare disease.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Knowledge and Attitudes about Privacy and Secondary Data Use among African-Americans Using Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing.Public health genomics · 2022Article
- "There's not much we can do…" researcher-level barriers to the inclusion of underrepresented participants in translational research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- Demonstrating trustworthiness when collecting and sharing genomic data: public views across 22 countries.Genome medicine · 2021Article
- Structural Racism in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Moving Forward.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThis study sought to explore the decision to participate in genomics research for African American individuals. Our overall goal was to explore (1) the attributes that significantly contribute to willingness to participate in genomics research; (2) how these attributes are interpreted (what is their meaning?); (3) how trustworthiness is estimated in the decision to participate in research (i.e., what are the symbolic representations or heuristics of trustworthiness in decision-making?); and (4) how participants see factors to counterweigh each other.
methodsWe sought a methodology that would afford exploration of the compensatory nature of decision-making where some choice attributes may be weighed differently than others as well as the use of heuristics (shortcuts to estimate key concepts in the mentally taxing task of decision-making) for concepts such as trustworthiness. We used a qualitative story deck to create hypothetical research scenarios with variable attributes (i.e., researcher race/ethnicity; institutional affiliation; research goal; and biospecimen requested) to determine how individuals find and interpret information to make decisions about research participation. These semi-structured interviews (n = 82) were conducted in African American barbershops in Baltimore City and Prince George's County, Maryland.
resultsQuantitative and qualitative analysis was completed. Findings include that, even in the absence of interpersonal connection, trustworthiness can be communicated through multiple factors, such as (1) shared values with researchers and (2) familiarity. Conversely, (1) ambiguity, especially regarding the use of biospecimens, (2) negative reputations, and (3) perceptions of "hidden agendas" were associated with a lower willingness to participate. However, the alignment of participant and research goals was weighed more heavily in decisions than other factors.
conclusionThis study finds that negatively assessed characteristics in research design do not result in automatic rejections of participation. Negative assessments can be mitigated by emphasizing the multiple factors that communicate trustworthiness in the consent process, which may improve rates of research 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.