Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36908463›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

From the national to the local: Issues of trust and a model for community-academic-engagement.

Olufunmilayo Chinekezi, Lauri Andress, Etsemaye P Agonafer, Susan Massick, Sarah Piepenbrink, Karey M Sutton, Philip M Alberti, Desiree de la Torre, Shannon Guillot-Wright, Marshala Lee

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. "Do they REALLY trust us"?: Lessons from a volunteer research registry.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

10 authors.

Olufunmilayo ChinekeziNational Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC, United States.
Lauri AndressDepartment of Medical Education, Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, PA, United States.
Etsemaye P AgonaferDepartment of Health System Science, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, CA, United States.
Susan MassickDepartment of Dermatology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, United States.
Sarah PiepenbrinkAAMC Center for Health Justice, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC, United States.
Karey M SuttonHealth Equity Research, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC, United States.
Philip M AlbertiAAMC Center for Health Justice, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC, United States.
Desiree de la TorreCommunity Affairs and Population Health Improvement, Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC, United States.
Shannon Guillot-WrightCenter for Violence Prevention, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, United States.
Marshala LeeHarrington Value Institute Community Partnership Fund, ChristianaCare, Wilmington, DE, United States.

Funding

NIOSH CDC HHS T42 OH008421
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inequities in health and health care in the United States have persisted for decades, and the impacts on equity from the COVID-19 pandemic were no exception. In addition to the disproportionate burden of the disease across various populations, the pandemic posed several challenges, which exacerbated these existing inequities. This has undoubtedly contributed to deeply rooted public mistrust in medical research and healthcare delivery, particularly among historically and structurally oppressed populations. In the summer of 2020, given the series of social injustices posed by the pandemic and highly publicized incidents of police brutality, notably the murder of George Floyd, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) enlisted the help of a national collaborative, the AAMC Collaborative for Health Equity: Act, Research, Generate Evidence (CHARGE) to establish a three-way partnership that would gather and prioritize community perspectives and lived experiences from multiple regions across the US on the role of academic medicals centers (AMCs) in advancing health and social justice. Given physical gathering constraints posed by the pandemic, virtual interviews were conducted with 30 racially and ethnically diverse community members across the country who expressed their views on how medical education, clinical care, and research could or did impact their health experiences. These interviews were framed within the context of the relationship between historically oppressed groups and the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials underway. From the three-way partnership formed with the AAMC, AAMC CHARGE participants, and 30 community members from racially and ethnically diverse groups, qualitative methods provided lived experiences supporting other literature on the lack of trust between oppressed communities and AMCs. This led to the development of the Principles of Trustworthiness (PoT) Toolkit, which features ten principles inspired by community members' insights into how AMCs can demonstrate they are worthy of their community's trust. In the end, the three-way partnership serves as a successful model for other national medical and health organizations to establish community engaged processes that elicit and prioritize lived experiences describing relationships between AMCs and oppressed communities.

Indexed as

COVID-19TrustCOVID-19 VaccinesDelivery of Health CareHumansPandemicsUnited StatesCOVID-19 Vaccinescommunity engagementhealthcarehealth equitysocial justicetrustworthiness

Identifiers

PMID36908463
PMCPMC10000727

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
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.