Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33481944›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Measuring research mistrust in adolescents and adults: Validity and reliability of an adapted version of the Group-Based Medical Mistrust Scale.

Amelia S Knopf, Peter Krombach, Amy J Katz, Rebecca Baker, Gregory Zimet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Diversity in Digital Pill Systems: Differences in Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Use of a Digital Pill System for HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Among Men Who Have Sex with Men with Diverse Racial and Ethnic Identities.Proceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors.

Amelia S KnopfDepartment of Community and Health Systems, Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2557-4556
Peter KrombachOffice of Evaluation, Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America.
Amy J KatzDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Adolescent Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America.
Rebecca BakerDepartment of Community and Health Systems, Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America.
Gregory ZimetDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Adolescent Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mistrust of health care providers among persons of color is a significant barrier to engaging them in research studies. Underrepresentation of persons of color is particularly problematic when the health problem under study disproportionately affects minoritized communities. The purpose of this study was to test the validity and reliability of an abbreviated and adapted version of the Group Based Medical Mistrust Scale. The GBMMS is a 12-item scale with three subscales that assess suspicion, experiences of discrimination, and lack of support in the health care setting. To adapt for use in the research setting, we shortened the scale to six items, and replaced "health care workers" and "health care" with "medical researchers" and "medical research," respectively. Using panelists from a market research firm, we recruited and enrolled a racially and ethnically diverse sample of American adults (N = 365) and adolescents aged 14-17 (N = 250). We administered the adapted scale in a web-based survey. We used Cronbach's alpha to evaluate measure internal reliability of the scale and external factor analysis to evaluate the relationships between the revised scale items. Five of the six items loaded onto a single factor, with (α = 0.917) for adolescents and (α = 0.912) for adults. Mean scores for each item ranged from 2.5-2.9, and the mean summary score (range 6-25) was 13.3 for adults and 13.1 for adolescents. Among adults, Black respondents had significantly higher mean summary scores compared to whites and those in other racia/ethnic groups (p<0.001). There was a trend toward significance for Black adolescents as compared to white respondents and those in other racial/ethnic groups (p = 0.09). This five-item modified version of the GBMMS is reliable and valid for measuring research mistrust with American adults and adolescents of diverse racial and ethnic identities.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultDelivery of Health CareFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMalePsychometricsRacial GroupsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTrust

Identifiers

PMID33481944
PMCPMC7822238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.