ArticleACR open rheumatology2023
Feasibility and Utility of a Pilot Peer Education Program to Improve Patient Engagement in Lupus Clinical Trials: Implementation and Evaluation in a Multisite Model Within a Lupus Clinical Trials Network.
Article in ACR open rheumatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Addressing the Key Challenges of Decentralized Clinical Trials in Europe: Multistakeholder Perspective Delphi Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Patient perspectives on clinical trial participation for novel advanced therapies: a focus group study in systemic lupus erythematosus.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Racial differences in clinical trial perceptions among a large, predominantly Black cohort of people with systemic lupus erythematosus in the Southeastern USA.Lupus science & medicine · 2025Article
- An intersectionality framework for identifying relevant covariates in health equity research.Frontiers in public health · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess outcomes related to Lupus Therapeutics' Patient Advocates for Lupus Studies (LT-PALS), a peer-to-peer lupus clinical trial (LCT) education program designed to improve representation of diverse groups in LCTs. Patients with lupus and clinical trial participation experience were trained as peer educators (PALs) providing trial-agnostic education to trial-naive patients with lupus.
methodsWe used a two-arm, randomized pretest/posttest study design to evaluate outcomes related to LCT participation: knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and intentions to participate in an LCT. Five academic medical centers piloted the program. The intervention group (IG) individually received peer-to-peer education sessions with trained PALs, primarily via telephone; the control group (CG) received a 3-week waiting period. We conducted within/between-group t-tests and multiple linear regressions with posttest scores as dependent variables and participation in LT-PALS as the exposure variable.
resultsThe sample (n = 136) included 64 IG and 72 CG participants, with 67.7% identifying as Black. At posttest, IG participants had higher knowledge (P < 0.01) scores than the CG participants. Regression models controlling for participant characteristics showed higher IG posttest scores for knowledge (P < 0.001) and intentions (P < 0.05). From pretest to 3-month follow-up, IG self-efficacy scores increased (P < 0.01). About half (46.9%) of IG participants reported engagement with an LCT at 1-year follow-up. Black and Hispanic participants rated higher overall program satisfaction compared with White (P < 0.01) and non-Hispanic (P < 0.05) participants.
conclusionFindings demonstrated feasibility of LT-PALS and showed promise in increasing engagement from groups underrepresented in LCTs.
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.