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.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Operationalizing transparency regarding the use of health data for research: a cross-sectional survey of citizens' perspectives.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Patient Perspectives in Cardiovascular Research: A Qualitative Study of Barriers, Trust, and Strategies for Inclusive Clinical Trials.Circulation. Population health and outcomes · 2026Article
- Exploring patient motivations and preferences for medical data sharing with researchers: a simulation study using the iAgree platform.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Feasibility for a Community-Based Parkinson Disease Cohort in Hawaii.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2026Article
- Evaluating patients' trust in health information based on different dimensions of trust.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- A scoping review of Dialectical Behavior Therapy with patients with minoritized identity constructs.Counselling and psychotherapy research · 2025Article
- What research participants say about their research experiences in Empowering the Participant Voice: Outcomes and actionable data.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Health literacy, numeracy, graph literacy, and digital literacy: an overview of definitions, evaluation methods, and best practices.European journal of cardiovascular nursing · 2024Review
- Perceptions of patient-reported outcome data access and sharing among patients with heart failure: ethical implications for research.European journal of cardiovascular nursing · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.