Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35699571›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2022

Building trust in research through information and intent transparency with health information: representative cross-sectional survey of 502 US adults.

Sabrina Mangal, Leslie Park, Meghan Reading Turchioe, Jacky Choi, Stephanie Niño de Rivera, Annie Myers, Parag Goyal, Lydia Dugdale, Ruth Masterson Creber

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2022. 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
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sabrina MangalDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2059-6369
Leslie ParkDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Meghan Reading TurchioeDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6264-6320
Jacky ChoiDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Stephanie Niño de RiveraDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Annie MyersDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Parag GoyalDepartment of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Lydia DugdaleDepartment of Medicine, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Ruth Masterson CreberDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4238-9902
Cornell University · USColumbia University · US

Funding

Should we return patient reported outcomes to human subjects participants?-exploring ethical obligationsR00NR016275 · NINR · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI MASTERSON CREBER, RUTH MARIE · 2018 to 2020
$896k
Data-driven shared decision-making to reduce symptom burden in atrial fibrillationR00NR019124 · NINR · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI TURCHIOE, MEGHAN READING · 2022 to 2024
$732k
NINR NIH HHS R00 NR016275NINR NIH HHS R00 NR019124
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveParticipation in healthcare research shapes health policy and practice; however, low trust is a barrier to participation. We evaluated whether returning health information (information transparency) and disclosing intent of data use (intent transparency) impacts trust in research. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted an online survey with a representative sample of 502 US adults. We assessed baseline trust and change in trust using 6 use cases representing the Social-Ecological Model. We assessed descriptive statistics and associations between trust and sociodemographic variables using logistic and multinomial regression.

resultsMost participants (84%) want their health research information returned. Black/African American participants were more likely to increase trust in research with individual information transparency (odds ratio (OR) 2.06 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-4.34]) and with intent transparency when sharing with chosen friends and family (3.66 [1.98-6.77]), doctors and nurses (1.96 [1.10-3.65]), or health tech companies (1.87 [1.02-3.40]). Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Multirace, and individuals with a race not listed, were more likely to increase trust when sharing with health policy makers (1.88 [1.09-3.30]). Women were less likely to increase trust when sharing with friends and family (0.55 [0.35-0.87]) or health tech companies (0.46 [0.31-0.70]). DISCUSSION: Participants wanted their health information returned and would increase their trust in research with transparency when sharing health information.

conclusionTrust in research is influenced by interrelated factors. Future research should recruit diverse samples with lower baseline trust levels to explore changes in trust, with variation on the type of information shared.

Indexed as

PhysiciansTrustAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansSurveys and Questionnaireshealth informaticspatient-reported outcomesrecruitmenttransparencytrust

Identifiers

PMID35699571
PMCPMC9382374
OpenAlexW4282827252

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.