Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37125059›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical and translational science2023

Community engagement strategies to promote recruitment and participation in clinical research among rural communities: A narrative review.

Tabetha A Brockman, Olivia Shaw, Liana Wiepert, Quang Anh Nguyen, Sydney S Kelpin, Ian West, Monica Albertie, Shantel Williams, Adeline Abbenyi, Noreen Stephenson and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
17.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Recruitment strategies for community-based pharmacy research.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Tabetha A BrockmanCenter for Clinical and Translational Science, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Olivia ShawVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Liana WiepertTufts University, Medford, MA, USA.
Quang Anh NguyenDepartment of Psychology and Psychiatry, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Sydney S KelpinDepartment of Psychology and Psychiatry, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Ian WestColumbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Monica AlbertieCenter for Clinical and Translational Science, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Shantel WilliamsCenter for Health Equity and Community Engagement Research, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Adeline AbbenyiCenter for Health Equity and Community Engagement Research, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Noreen StephensonCenter for Health Equity and Community Engagement Research, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Diana Almader-DouglasEducation Administration, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Christi A PattenCenter for Clinical and Translational Science, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7194-8160
Mayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Florida · USColumbia University · USTufts University · USVirginia Tech · US

Funding

Mayo Clinic Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCaTS UL1 Supplement - Dr. Timothy Curry)UL1TR002377 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI VESNA D GAROVIC · 2017 to 2026
$78.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002377
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Residents of rural areas are underrepresented in research. The aim of this narrative review was to explore studies describing the effectiveness of community engagement strategies with rural communities to promote participant recruitment and participation in clinical research. Following PRISMA guidelines, this narrative review was conducted in June 2020. Our search strategy was built around keywords that included community-engaged research, rural community, and recruitment strategies into clinical research. Content-related descriptive statistics were summarized. The selected articles were distributed into categories of levels of community engagement: inform, consult, involve, collaborate, or co-lead. The search resulted in 2,473 identified studies of which forty-eight met inclusion criteria. Of these, 47.1% were randomized controlled trials. The most common levels of engagement were consultation (n = 24 studies) and collaboration (n = 15), while very few focused on informing (n = 2) and co-leadership (n = 2). Strategies, limitations, and findings are discussed for each level of community engagement. This narrative addressed a gap in knowledge regarding participant recruitment in rural communities in relation to assistance from community members. Community engagement contributed to the success of the research, especially in recruitment, participation, and building trust and partnership.

Indexed as

clinical researchcommunity engagementRural communities

Identifiers

PMID37125059
PMCPMC10130845
OpenAlexW4319601542

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.