ArticleContemporary clinical trials2023
Assessing geographic disparities in mental health research participation.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Remote Recruitment to Diversify Infant Research Participation: Lessons From the Infant Vaccine Biepository.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2026Article
- Declining rural oncologist supply in the United States: a workforce analysis from 2014 to 2025.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Impact of a National Telehealth Outpatient Mental Health Program in Rural Communities.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Preferred conditions for promoting participation in on-site oral health surveys among Japanese adults: insights from a conjoint analysis.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Cognitive aging in rural communities: preliminary memory characterization of a community cohort from Southern Nevada.Frontiers in dementia · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLarge geographic health disparities are well-documented within the U.S. Although approximately 60 million Americans-or roughly 20% of the total U.S. population-live in rural areas, rural residents may be less likely to participate in health research, including mental health research, due to multiple barriers. This retrospective analysis evaluated the urbanity and rurality of inpatient research participants and potential research participants over a five-year period at the Experimental Therapeutics and Pathophysiology Branch (ETPB), NIMH-NIH (Bethesda, Maryland), which conducts experimental medicine and neurobiological research in mood disorders.
methodsParticipant and potential participant zip codes were converted to Rural Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes (1-3 urban, 4-10 rural). These results were compared with each other and with U.S. population data.
resultsThe analysis included 182 research participants and 1864 potential research participants; the former were admitted to an in-person research unit and the latter were screened by phone or online. ETPB research participants had an urban residence rate of 93.4% and a rural residence rate of 6.6%. Potential ETPB research participants had an urban residence rate of 90.9% and a rural residence rate of 9.1%. In comparison, the U.S. urban residence rate is 80% and the rural rate is 20%.
conclusionAt the ETPB, both research participants with mood disorders admitted to an in-person research unit and potential research participants screened online or by phone from rural areas were under-represented relative to participants from more urban areas. Further study of research recruitment barriers in rural areas of the U.S is needed.
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.