Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34625863›Full record

ArticleJournal of community health2022

Use of Community Listening Sessions to Disseminate Research Findings to Past Participants and Communities.

Jennifer Cunningham-Erves, Elizabeth C Stewart, Jillian Duke, Leah Alexander, Jamaine Davis, Derek Wilus, Kimberlee Wyche-Etheridge, Stephania T Miller

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Communicating Health Research With Plain Language.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jennifer Cunningham-ErvesDepartment of Internal Medicine, Meharry Medical College, 1005 Dr. D. B. Todd Jr. Blvd., Nashville, TN, 37208-3599, USA. jerves@mmc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7780-9874
Elizabeth C StewartDepartment of Surgery, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, 37208, USA.
Jillian DukeDepartment of Surgery, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, 37208, USA.
Leah AlexanderDivision of Public Health Practice, School of Graduate Studies Research, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, 37208, USA.
Jamaine DavisDepartment of Biochemistry and Cancer Biology, School of Medicine, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, 37208, USA.
Derek WilusDivision of Public Health Practice, School of Graduate Studies Research, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, 37208, USA.
Kimberlee Wyche-EtheridgeDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, 37208, USA.
Stephania T MillerDepartment of Surgery, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, 37208, USA.
Meharry Medical College · US

Funding

The RCMI Program in Health Disparities Research at Meharry Medical College - SupplementU54MD007586 · NIMHD · MEHARRY MEDICAL COLLEGE · PI Samuel Evans Adunyah, JAMES E HILDRETH · 2017 to 2026
$48.2M
Urgent Competitive Revision to Existing NIH Grants and Cooperative Agreements (Urgent Supplement - Clinical Trial Optional)U24MD015970 · NIMHD · MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI Sandra Perreira Chang, Elizabeth O. Ofili · 2020 to 2026
$20.6M
NIMHD NIH HHS U24 MD015970NIMHD NIH HHS U54 MD007586
6 · The paper itself

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

Black or African AmericanTrustHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesCommunityDisseminationListening sessionPast research participantsTrust

Identifiers

PMID34625863
PMCPMC8500252
OpenAlexW3202310584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.