Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37963054›Full record

ArticleThe Hastings Center report2023

The Public Performativity of Trust.

Melissa Creary, Lynette Hammond Gerido

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Hastings Center report, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Community participation in responding to health misinformation.International journal for equity in health · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Melissa Creary
Lynette Hammond Gerido

Funding

University of Michigan Training Program in ELSI ResearchT32HG010030 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI ROBERTS, SCOTT · 2018 to 2022
$962k
NCI NIH HHS L60 CA274876NHGRI NIH HHS T32 HG010030NIH HHS T32 HG010030
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Building trust between academic medical centers and certain communities they depend on in the research process is hard, particularly when those communities consist of minoritized or historically marginalized populations. Some believe that engagement activities like the creation of advisory boards, town halls, or a research workforce that looks more like community members will establish or reestablish trust between academic medical centers and racialized communities. However, without systematic approaches to dismantle racism, those well-intended actions become public performativity, and trust building will fail. In this essay, we draw upon foundational ethical principles of trust, distrust, and trust building; apply the concept of bounded justice to performative trust acts; and center the works of Black and Indigenous feminist bioethicists to revisit some of the wisdom and valuable lessons they have contributed. Rebuilding trust is hard to do because people and institutions are often not honest about how hard it is and there is no simple box-checking task that can disentangle our society's injustices, but there are steps to take in this direction. Individuals and institutions can recognize valuable relevant work that has already been written, partake in critical reflection, and then apply insights gained to take both small and sustainable steps toward transformational change and deeper trust.

Indexed as

RacismTrustEthicistsHumansacademic medical centersbioethicscommunity engagementjusticeracismtrust

Identifiers

PMID37963054
PMCPMC10810237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.