Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33244412›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2020

Satisfaction and perceptions of research participants in clinical and translational studies: An urban multi-institution with CTSA.

Priscilla Adler, Jane Otado, John Kwagyan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Patient and Caregiver Experiences of Participating in Parkinson's Disease Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Identifying and Deploying Benchmarks for Clinical Research at Sites.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors.

Priscilla AdlerVA Medical Center, Institute for Clinical Research, Washington, DC, USA.
Jane OtadoDepartment of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, Howard University, Washington, DC, USA.
John KwagyanDepartment of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, Howard University, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

Maternal Morbidity and Mortality: Risk Factors, Early Detection and Personalized InterventionUL1TR001409 · NCATS · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI GONDRE-LEWIS, MARJORIE C, MELLMAN, THOMAS A · 2015 to 2024
$37.8M
Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science (GHUUL1TR000101 · NCATS · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI MELLMAN, THOMAS A, VERBALIS, JOSEPH G · 2012 to 2015
$19.3M
Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science (GHUUL1RR031975 · NCRR · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI MELLMAN, THOMAS A, VERBALIS, JOSEPH G · 2010 to 2011
$14.6M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000101NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001409NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR031975
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo examine research participants' levels of satisfaction and perceptions and aid researchers to better engage research volunteers from all racial and ethnic populations in clinical trials. A participant satisfaction survey was developed that focused on three domains to reflect satisfaction with delivery of care, environment, and center operations. In addition, the survey contained open-ended questions to reflect overall experiences and perceptions. Two hundred and seventy-eight participants (55% African American and 29% non-Hispanic Whites) with an average age of 52 years completed the survey.

resultsThe results indicated that the majority of the participants rated their satisfaction very highly across all domains. Ninety percent stated they were very satisfied/satisfied or very strongly agreed/agreed in the three domains. Obtaining high-quality care/access to health care professionals (60%), learning more about their illness/disease (60%), and helping others (57%) were noted as important factors in choosing to participate in a trial. Regarding overall experience, majority of respondents stated that friendliness, expertise of staff, learning more about their disease, and contributing to science were important. Further, financial compensation was not a primary motivation for participation. A majority of participants stated that they would participate in future studies and would recommend a friend or a family member to participate in clinical trials.

conclusionsThe findings indicate that the degree of satisfaction with the research staff and with the specific trial itself are important determinants for enrolling, completing a study, and for participating in future trials.

Indexed as

African Americansclinical trials participationCTSA HubsMinoritiesparticipant satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID33244412
PMCPMC7681123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.