ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2023
Co-creation and engagement in a DNA integrity cohort study.
Article 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 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.
- Factors influencing trustworthiness and perceived biases of medical information and genetic testing for Black and White Americans.PLoS genetics · 2025Article
- Respectful closure of a CEnR DNA integrity study: A bridge to sustained interactions with research participants.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: The partnership between a research community engagement team (CE Team) and a community advisory board (CAB) formed the basis for bidirectional communication in developing resources for participant recruitment in a DNA integrity study. Engaging with a minoritized community, this partnership focused on respect, accessibility, and expanded engagement. Methods: A ten-member CAB, working in two groups defined by meeting time convenience, provided insight and feedback to the CE Team in the creation of recruitment and consent materials, via an iterative design process in which one CAB group reviewed and enhanced materials, and the second group tested and refined them further. The continuous analysis of CE Team notes from CAB meetings captured information needed both for materials refinement and implementation of CAB-suggested activities. Results: The partnership resulted in the co-creation of recruitment and consent materials that facilitated the enrollment of 191 individuals into the study. The CAB encouraged and assisted in expanded engagement inclusive of community leaders. This broader engagement provided information about the DNA integrity study to community decision-makers as well as responded to questions and concerns about the research. The bidirectional communication between the CAB and the CE Team encouraged the researchers to consider topics and research interests related to the current study but also responsive to community concerns. Conclusions: The CAB helped the CE Team develop a better understanding of the language of partnership and respect. In this way, the partnership opened doors for expanded community engagement and effective communication with potential study participants.
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.