Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36580334›Full record

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.

Sarah C Stallings, Jennifer Cunningham-Erves, Carleigh Frazier, Jabári S Ichimura, Thelma C Hurd, Jordan Jurinsky, Amber Acquaye, Jacquelyn S Dalton, Consuelo H Wilkins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Engaging Communities and Empowering Research: Lessons from a Network of Community Engagement Cores.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. "Do they REALLY trust us"?: Lessons from a volunteer research registry.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Sarah C StallingsDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Jennifer Cunningham-ErvesDepartment of Internal Medicine, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tennessee.
Carleigh FrazierPublic Health Department, University of California, Merced, Visalia.
Jabári S IchimuraMeharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, Tennessee.
Thelma C HurdDepartment of Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.
Jordan JurinskyDepartment of Human and Organizational Development, Peabody College of Education and Human Development, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
Amber AcquayeDepartment of Human and Organizational Development, Peabody College of Education and Human Development, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
Jacquelyn S DaltonMeharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, Tennessee.
Consuelo H WilkinsDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

Funding

Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (VICTR) -Identifying correlates of functional immunity in SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasmaUL1TR002243 · NCATS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Paul A. Harris, Wesley H Self · 2017 to 2026
$130.7M
Improving Clinical trial Education, Recruitment, and Enrollment at CTSA Hubs (I-CERCH) - HEAL SupplementU24TR001579 · NCATS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI HARRIS, PAUL A., WILKINS, CONSUELO HOPKINS · 2016 to 2022
$34.1M
Genetic Privacy and Identity in Community Settings - GetPreCiSeRM1HG009034 · NHGRI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI CLAYTON, ELLEN WRIGHT, MALIN, BRADLEY A. · 2016 to 2024
$8.3M
NCATS NIH HHS U24 TR001579NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002243NHGRI NIH HHS RM1 HG009034
6 · The paper itself

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

Biomedical ResearchEthnicityAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBlack or African AmericanCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsTrustWhite PeopleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID36580334
PMCPMC9856656

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.