ArticleJAMA network open2022
Development and Validation of the Perceptions of Research Trustworthiness Scale to Measure Trust Among Minoritized Racial and Ethnic Groups in Biomedical Research in the US.
Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Digital Asthma Self-Management Program for Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Beyond mistrust: Diverse biobanking preferences among parents and adolescents with sickle cell disease.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026Article
- A Multisite, Randomized Trial Testing a Community-Digital Health Intervention among Black and Latino Adults with Cardiometabolic Conditions: The Roots of Wellness (Raíces del Bienestar) Protocol.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Emergency consent pathways in acute ischemic stroke trials: determinants, consequences, and stakeholder attitudes-an evidence-mapping study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Engaging Communities and Empowering Research: Lessons from a Network of Community Engagement Cores.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Association between Trust of Researchers and Willingness to Participate in Alzheimer's Disease Biomarker Research.Alzheimer's & dementia. Behavior & socioeconomics of aging · 2025Article
- CONNECT Platform to Increase Diverse Engagement and Enrollment in Cardiovascular Clinical Research: Rationale, Design, and Lessons Learned in Early Implementation.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Exploring Trust in Research Among Black American Men at a Health Promotion Symposium in Rural North Carolina.Journal of community health · 2025Article
- Embedding a commitment to equitable global access into basic and early-phase translational research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Review
- To increase trust in clinical research: Be worthy of trust and enhance the role of clinical research nurses.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Duke Research at Pickett: The evolution of a free-standing research site partnering with communities toward health equity advancement.Journal of clinical and translational science · 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
- Measuring trust in medical research: Perspectives from racial and ethnic communities underrepresented in research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Conceptualizing and Measuring Trust, Mistrust, and Distrust: Implications for Advancing Health Equity and Building Trustworthiness.Annual review of public health · 2024Review
- Seven Strategies to Integrate Equity within Translational Research in Neurology.Annals of neurology · 2024Review
- Community Trust, Attitudes and Preferences Related to Participation in Cancer Research in South Carolina.Journal of community health · 2024Article
- "Do they REALLY trust us"?: Lessons from a volunteer research registry.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Building an infrastructure to support the development, conduct, and reporting of informative clinical studies: The Rockefeller University experience.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- "It Can't Hurt!": Why Many Patients With Limited Life Expectancy Decide to Accept Lung Cancer Screening.Annals of family medicineArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Historically, trust in biomedical research has been lower among minoritized racial and ethnic groups who are underrepresented in and excluded from research, with the same groups experiencing worse health outcomes. Unfortunately, instruments that measure trust may not capture components of trust relevant to minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Objective: To develop and validate a scale to measure trust in biomedical research among minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, community-based survey study compared trust and distrust in biomedical research among Black, Latino, and White subgroups in the US using the Perceptions of Research Trustworthiness (PoRT) scale. The scale was developed between March 22, 2016, and September 19, 2018, as part of this study, and its structure, reliability, and validity were examined during pilot (n = 381) and validation (n = 532) phases between February 4, 2019, and July 27, 2021. Convenience samples of adult participants (aged ≥18 years) were recruited locally (Nashville, Tennessee, and San Antonio, Texas) and nationally through the ResearchMatch and Cint online platforms. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall and individual item Trust and Distrust subscale scores were compared. Overall Trust and Distrust scores were compared by race and ethnicity using a Kruskal-Wallis H test and individual item scores were compared using independent samples t test. Results: Of the 532 participants in the scale validation study, 144 (27.1%) were Black, 90 (16.9%) were Latino, and 282 (53.0%) were White. Participants had a median age of 43 years (range, 18-90 years), 352 (66.2%) were women, and 198 (37.2%) had educational attainment levels less than a college degree. Factor analysis of the 18-item PoRT scale revealed a 2-factor structure with two 9-item PoRT subscales (Trust and Distrust), which demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.72 and 0.87, respectively). Mean (SD) Trust subscale scores were lower among Black (34.33 [2.02]) and Latino (34.55 [1.97]) participants compared with White participants (36.32 [1.81]; P < .001). Mean (SD) Distrust subscale scores were higher among Black (21.0 [2.15]) and Latino (20.53 [2.21]) participants compared with White participants (18.4 [2.03]; P < .001). Individual item results showed that Black and Latino participants were less trusting and more distrusting than White individuals on items related to risks, harms, secrecy, confidentiality, and privacy. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the PoRT scale incorporates trust and trustworthiness concepts relevant among Black and Latino individuals and may allow more precise assessment of trust in research among these groups.
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.