ArticlePloS one2023
Perceptions about and reasons for participation in research bronchoscopy in Uganda: A qualitative analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Swedish study participants undergoing research bronchoscopy - a tolerable or unpleasant experience?Frontiers in medicine · 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This study sought to assess perceptions towards and reasons for participation in research bronchoscopy studies in a high TB burden urban setting. Additionally, the study aimed to identify areas of pre- and post-procedural concern among healthy adults approached to participate in research bronchoscopy. A cross sectional qualitative study was undertaken at the Uganda-Case Western Reserve University Collaboration Tuberculosis Research Project Clinic at Mulago National Referral Hospital in Kampala, Uganda. In-depth interviews were conducted with participants at their pre-bronchoscopy visit (n = 17) and after they had undergone bronchoscopy (n = 23) to examine their perceptions and experiences with the procedure. Following consent, all interviews were audio recorded and later transcribed and typed in MS WORD. Local language interviews were translated into English by the social science interviewers. Qualitative analysis was performed manually following an inductive and emergent approach typical in thematic analysis. This study was approved by the Makerere University School of Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee (MAKSS REC 09.18.220) and registered with the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST SS4785). Overall willingness to participate in bronchoscopy was high as many participants viewed the study as primarily a means of getting free health checks and determining their health status. Notably, despite extensive face to face counseling for this study coupled with the fact that our participants had been involved in prior research at the site, therapeutic misconception still played a pivotal role in willingness to participate in research bronchoscopy. Therapeutic misconception has important ethical and research implications in clinical research, which requires strategies to tackle it, even among a pool of potential participants who are knowledgeable about a disease or clinical care procedures. Continuous awareness and knowledge building about the difference between being a trial participant and therapeutic misconception must become a mainstay in trials to improve the process of informed consent for future research bronchoscopy studies.
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.