ArticlePloS one2023
Refusal to participate in research among hard-to-reach populations: The case of detained persons.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Article
- Promoting Health Literacy in the Workplace Among Civil Servants: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Providing insights on refusal to participate in research is critical to achieve a better understanding of the non-response bias. Little is known on people who refused to participate, especially in hard-to-reach populations such as detained persons. This study investigated the potential non-response bias among detained persons, comparing participants who accepted or refused to sign a one-time general informed consent. We used data collected in a cross-sectional study primary designed to evaluate a one-time general informed consent for research. A total of 190 participants were included in the study (response rate = 84.7%). The main outcome was the acceptance to sign the informed consent, used as a proxy to evaluate non-response. We collected sociodemographic variables, health literacy, and self-reported clinical information. A total of 83.2% of the participants signed the informed consent. In the multivariable model after lasso selection and according to the relative bias, the most important predictors were the level of education (OR = 2.13, bias = 20.7%), health insurance status (OR = 2.04, bias = 7.8%), need of another study language (OR = 0.21, bias = 39.4%), health literacy (OR = 2.20, bias = 10.0%), and region of origin (not included in the lasso regression model, bias = 9.2%). Clinical characteristics were not significantly associated with the main outcome and had low relative biases (≤ 2.7%). Refusers were more likely to have social vulnerabilities than consenters, but clinical vulnerabilities were similar in both groups. The non-response bias probably occurred in this prison population. Therefore, efforts should be made to reach this vulnerable population, improve participation in research, and ensure a fair and equitable distribution of research benefits.
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.