ArticleGenes2023
Gathering the Stakeholder's Perspective: Experiences and Opportunities in Rare Genetic Disease Research.
Article in Genes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient, parent and provider perspectives on sickle cell disease genetics research in Jamaica.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- 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
15 authors at 10 institutions in 9 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResearch participant feedback is rarely collected; therefore, investigators have limited understanding regarding stakeholders' (affected individuals/caregivers) motivation to participate. Members of the Genes to Mental Health Network (G2MH) surveyed stakeholders affected by copy number variants (CNVs) regarding perceived incentives for study participation, opinions concerning research priorities, and the necessity for future funding. Respondents were also asked about feelings of preparedness, research burden, and satisfaction with research study participation.
methodsModified validated surveys were used to assess stakeholders´ views across three domains: (1) Research Study Enrollment, Retainment, Withdrawal, and Future Participation; (2) Overall Research Experience, Burden, and Preparedness; (3) Research Priorities and Obstacles. Top box score analyses were performed.
resultsA total of 704 stakeholders´ responded from 29 countries representing 55 CNVs. The top reasons for initial participation in the research included reasons related to education and altruism. The top reasons for leaving a research study included treatment risks and side effects. The importance of sharing research findings and laboratory results with stakeholders was underscored by participants. Most stakeholders reported positive research experiences.
conclusionsThis study provides important insight into how individuals and families affected with a rare CNV feel toward research participation and their overall experience in rare disease research. There are clear targets for areas of improvement for study teams, although many stakeholders reported positive research experiences. Key findings from this international survey may help advance collaborative research and improve the experience of participants, investigators, and other stakeholders moving forward.
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.