ArticleArchives of dermatological research2024
A cross-sectional survey of clinical trials knowledge, participation, and perspectives in an underserved community of Washington, DC.
Article in Archives of dermatological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical and Regulatory Awareness of Clinical Trials: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study from Poland.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in clinical trial reporting for metastatic spine tumors: An exploration of North American studies.Neurosurgical review · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The inclusion of participants from underrepresented and underserved groups is lagging in dermatology clinical trials. Through dissemination of a pilot survey at a community skin health fair, knowledge, participation, and perspectives of clinical trials were evaluated in an urban, medically underserved community in Washington, DC. Clinical trial-related questions were derived from the Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 4. This cross-sectional survey analyzed responses from 39/55 attendees (71% response rate). Most respondents were female (23/37 [62.2%]), between the ages of 25 and 54 (19/38, [50.0%]), and self-identified as non-white (35/39 [89.7%]) with a majority self-identifying as Black (16/31 [41%]). Most respondents self-reported knowing "little" to "nothing" about clinical trials (26/35 [74.3%]), and even more were unaware of the federal resource clinicaltrials.gov (30/37 [81.1%]). Few respondents discussed clinical trials as a treatment option with their healthcare provider (8/35 [22.9%]), yet having a discussion was significantly correlated with clinical trial participation (p = 0.0302). Self-reported level of knowledge was not significantly associated with participation in a clinical trial (p = 0.3035). Healthcare providers were the preferred first source of clinical trial information, followed by an internet search. Respondents rarely cited mistrust or skepticism as a barrier to participation (2/34 [5.9%]). Subjective positive healthcare experiences were significantly correlated to positive expectations with clinical trial participation (p = 0.0242). The findings of this study suggest the essential role healthcare providers, including dermatologists, play in clinical trial education and recruitment of underrepresented populations, and that patient mistrust may be present but is a rarely cited barrier to clinical trial participation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38787442What 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.