ArticleCritical public health2022
How Black and Latino young men who have sex with men in the United States experience and engage with eligibility criteria and recruitment practices: implications for the sustainability of community-based research.
Article in Critical public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- "The hardest part of what we're doing": research staff perspectives on engaging marginalized populations in substance use trials.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2025Article
- A commentary on forging a path for CHANGE: culturally focused HIV training for the next generation in pursuit of equity.Critical public health · 2024Article
- A Mobile App to Assist the Mentors of African American Young Men Who Have Sex With Men: Usability Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Crowdsourced PrEP Promotion Messages for an HIV High-Burden Area: A Framework-Based Content Analysis.AIDS education and prevention : official publication of the International Society for AIDS Education · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research recruitment, eligibility, and who chooses to participate shape the resulting data and knowledge, which together inform interventions, treatment, and programming. Patterns of research participation are particularly salient at this moment given emerging biomedical prevention paradigms. This paper explores the perspectives of Black and Latino young men who have sex with men (BL-YMSM) regarding research recruitment and eligibility criteria, how their experiences influence willingness to enroll in a given study, and implications for the veracity and representativeness of resulting data. We examine inclusion and recruitment as a complex assemblage, which should not be reduced to its parts. From April-July 2018, we conducted in-depth interviews with 30 BL-YMSM, ages 18-29, in New York City. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the constant comparative method. Black and Latino YMSM's responses unveiled tensions between researchers', recruiters', and participants' expectations, particularly regarding eligibility criteria (e.g., age, sex frequency), assumptions about 'risky behaviors,' and the 'target' community. Men preferred peer-to-peer recruitment, noting that most approaches miss key population segments. Findings highlight the need to critically examine the selected 'target' community, who sees themselves as participants, and implications for data comprehensiveness and veracity. Study eligibility criteria and recruitment approaches are methodological issues that shape knowledge production and the policies and programs deployed into communities. These findings can inform how future research studies frame recruitment and eligibility in order to better meet the needs of participants and ensure future engagement.
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.