ArticleHealth research policy and systems2023
Rural research capacity: a co-created model for research success.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practice Challenges and Research Directions in Rural Drug and Alcohol Treatment: A Focus Group Study of Clinician Perspectives.Drug and alcohol review · 2026Article
- Cancer clinical trial recruitment for patients from rural areas: a scoping review.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
- Addressing pancreatic cancer disparities in Oregon's Native American population via tribally responsive research systems with the confederated tribes of warm springs.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Bridging the rural cancer gap: why clinical trials must include rural patients.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Using a community geography place-based approach to explore the impact of a regional research infrastructure in England.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Article
- 'The seagull theory: Where people fly in, gather information… fly out and nothing ever comes about': A qualitative exploration of barriers and enablers to research participation among adults with type 2 diabetes living in Australian rural communities.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2025Article
- The use of implementation mapping in healthcare settings: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Signals for change: A regional examination of rural clinical trial participant perspectives on values, health behaviors, and motivations for enrollment and retention in remote settings.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Challenges for research uptake for health policymaking and practice in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Surveillance for Pancreatic Cancer: Knowledge, Motivations, Barriers, and Preferences Among High-Risk Individuals and Underserved Populations.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterObservational
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe United States' National Institutes of Health (NIH) have long challenged academia to improve clinical trial enrollment, especially in underrepresented populations; inclusive of geography, age, disability status, racial and ethnic minorities. It has been shown that rural and urban residents enrolled in clinical trials have similar outcomes, yet, rural healthcare systems struggle to provide opportunities to rural residents to participate in clinical trials when infrastructure is limited or unsupportive of research programs and/or research staffing levels are insufficient. To fully address the barriers to clinical trial access in rural areas, it is not adequate to simply open more trials. Community receptivity of research as well as organizational and community capacity must be considered. This project was determined by the Oregon Health and Science University's Institutional Review Board to be generalizable research across the chosen counties and was approved to operate under a waiver of written consent. Participants received a cash incentive in appreciation for their time and verbally agreed to participate after reviewing a project information sheet.
methodsThe research team co-created a community-responsive approach to the receipt, review, and acceptance of clinical trials in a rural community setting. An adapted 5 step Implementation Mapping approach was used to develop a systematic strategy intended to increase the success, and therefore, the number of clinical trials offered in a rural community.
resultsThe research team and participating rural community members pilot-tested the implementation of a co-designed research review strategy, inclusive of a Regional Cultural Landscape and three co-created project submission and feasibility review forms, with a cancer early detection clinical trial. The proposed clinical trial required engagement from primary care and oncology. Utilizing the research review strategy demonstrated strong researcher-community stakeholder communication and negotiation, which resulted in early identification and resolution of potential barriers, hiring a local clinical research coordinator, and timely trial opening.
conclusionTo the knowledge of the research team, the work described is the first to use a community-engaged approach for creating a clinical trial implementation strategy directly supportive of rural-sitting community stakeholders in receiving, reviewing, and approving cancer-related clinical trials in their community. Participating community members and leaders had the chance to negotiate research protocol changes or considerations directly with researchers interested in conducting a cancer clinical trial in their rural setting.
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.