ArticleJournal of community health2022
Use of Community Listening Sessions to Disseminate Research Findings to Past Participants and Communities.
Article in Journal of community health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current global practice and implications for future research on disseminating health research results to study participants: A systematic review.PLoS medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Strengthening Community Health Worker and Promotora Workforce Capacity.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Community-Academic Workshop on Translating Research Findings into Policy Briefs for Broader Dissemination.Ethnicity & disease · 2025Article
- Listening to the voices of Guatemalan community leaders: a participatory approach to identifying priorities to curtail HIV within transgender communities.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- How do study participants want to be informed about study results: Findings from a malaria trial in Cambodia, Ethiopia, Pakistan, and Indonesia.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Community perspectives on cancer and cancer research: findings from listening sessions with diverse groups in Philadelphia.Discover public health · 2025Article
- Listening Sessions to Shape the Innovative NIH ComPASS Common Fund Program to Advance Health Equity.American journal of public health · 2024Article
- Conceptualizing and Measuring Trust, Mistrust, and Distrust: Implications for Advancing Health Equity and Building Trustworthiness.Annual review of public health · 2024Review
- Eliciting Opinions on Health Messaging During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Survey Study.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
- Addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in rural communities: A case study in engaging trusted messengers to pivot and plan.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Communicating Health Research With Plain Language.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this sequential, explanatory mixed methods study is to determine changes in attitudes towards research, trust in medical researchers and the process, and willingness to participate in research among African Americans immediately after receiving past study findings in a community listening session (CLS). We developed and implemented four CLSs with a total of 57 African Americans who were either past research participants or members of the community-at-large. In the quantitative (dominant) phase, 32 participants completed pre-post surveys and 10 of those participants completed the follow-up semi-structured interviews. Paired samples t-tests and McNemar's test determined bivariate differences between pre- and post-surveys. Thematic analyses determined emerging themes to further understand these differences. There was a significant increase in: (1) perceived advantages of clinical trials pretest (M = 26.63, SD = 5.43) and post-test (M = 28.53, SD = 4.24, p < .01); and (2) in trust in medical researchers from pre to post (M = 36.16, SD = 10.40 vs. M = 27.53, SD = 9.37, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in pre- and post-tests as it relates to perceived disadvantages of clinical trials and willingness to participate. Qualitative analysis yielded the following themes: (1) sharing research results and the impact on attitudes towards research; (2) community listening sessions: a trust building strategy; and (3) satisfaction with the community listening session. Community listening sessions hold promise as a method that researchers can use to simultaneously disseminate research findings and positively impact research perceptions and potentially participation among racial and ethnic minorities.
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.