Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38250302›Full record

ArticleHealth equity2024

"I Am Interested!": The Voices of the Community and Their Participation in Health Advisory Boards.

Sylk Sotto-Santiago, Sarah Wiehe, Gina Claxton, Gavin Stamper, Lindsey Delp, Brenda Hudson, Dustin Lynch, Sharon Moe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health equity, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sylk Sotto-SantiagoIndiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3810-1205
Sarah WieheIndiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Gina ClaxtonIndiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Gavin StamperIndiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Lindsey DelpIndiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Brenda HudsonIndiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Dustin LynchIndiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Sharon MoeIndiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Researchers can often be challenged by meaningful efforts to involve the public and communities in research. Community and health advisory boards (HABs) offer an opportunity to create a fully intentional and honest relationship between researchers and the community. Objective: Most recently, the All Indiana (IN) for Health HAB had four openings and a call was published to our community of over 13,800 individuals in the All IN for Health newsletter. Four hundred eighty-eight individuals submitted applications to become part of the board. In what follows, we share the lessons in motivations and interests of individuals who responded. Methods: The application process included the following questions: What lived experiences and/or personal interests have motivated you to be involved in All IN for Health? Please explain why you are interested in being an All IN for HAB member. Our analysis approach was qualitative and centered on narrative research. Results: We organize the findings in two categories: Motivation and Interests. Individuals were motivated to participate based on family or friend diagnosis, personal diagnosis, roles as caregivers, desire to impact change and advocacy, role as health professional, and previous participation in research. Interests followed similar themes beginning with crediting their interest to a diagnosis. In addition, we categorized desire to share their experience, personal positionality, and previous research experience, and contributing to the education of student/trainee. Conclusion: By understanding motivations, we understand needs. This information can be used for other advisory boards, as well as recruitment into research participation and health care advocacy.

Indexed as

community advisory boardcommunity engagementhealth equityvolunteer registry

Identifiers

PMID38250302
PMCPMC10797172
OpenAlexW4390661924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.