Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36189438›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in sociology2022

Rapid human subjects research in times of disruption.

Chelsea A LeNoble, Kristin A Horan, Nina Steigerwald

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in sociology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Chelsea A LeNobleEmbry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, United States.
Kristin A HoranDepartment of Psychology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, United States.
Nina SteigerwaldDepartment of Psychology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One significant challenge facing the implementation of rapid research studies, or research that responds quickly to societal needs, involves the recruitment and retention of human subjects research participants. The purpose of this paper is to offer insights into the nuances of conducting rapid research during times of disruption. The first-hand accounts of participants experiencing disruption are critical and perishable. Although it may be difficult to recruit and retain participants, their data are needed to best understand and learn from novel, unprecedented situations. To this end, the authors draw from and analyze their experience conducting rapid research funded by the National Science Foundation to examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on undergraduate education. The paper begins with a summary of the rapid project aims and research questions. Then, participant recruitment and retention challenges are briefly introduced as an advanced organizer of the paper. From there, the paper is structured in three sections that represent the human subjects research challenges faced during rapid study implementation. In the discussion, the authors summarize the above challenges and lessons learned in the larger context of rapid research. They reflect on a sometimes-forgotten issue: the wellbeing of research team members who face these and other salient challenges reflective of navigating life during a worldwide pandemic. By describing human subjects research challenges experienced in the implementation of a rapid study and lessons learned from experiencing and adapting to these challenges, this paper contributes meaningful insights into the daily challenges of carrying out rapid research.

Indexed as

COVID-19human subjectsrapid researchresearch methodssocial science

Identifiers

PMID36189438
PMCPMC9524540

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.