Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38787442›Full record

ArticleArchives of dermatological research2024

A cross-sectional survey of clinical trials knowledge, participation, and perspectives in an underserved community of Washington, DC.

Cleo Whiting, Deega Omar, Sarah Millan, Andeulazia Murdock, Sara Abdel Azim, Adam Friedman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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. Article
  2. Review
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

6 authors.

Cleo WhitingDepartment of Dermatology, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 2150 Pennsylvania Ave NW Fl. 2 South, Washington, DC, 20037, USA.
Deega OmarDepartment of Dermatology, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 2150 Pennsylvania Ave NW Fl. 2 South, Washington, DC, 20037, USA.
Sarah MillanDepartment of Dermatology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA.
Andeulazia MurdockDepartment of Dermatology, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 2150 Pennsylvania Ave NW Fl. 2 South, Washington, DC, 20037, USA.
Sara Abdel AzimDepartment of Dermatology, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 2150 Pennsylvania Ave NW Fl. 2 South, Washington, DC, 20037, USA.
Adam FriedmanDepartment of Dermatology, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 2150 Pennsylvania Ave NW Fl. 2 South, Washington, DC, 20037, USA. ajfriedman@mfa.gwu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical Trials as TopicHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDermatologyDistrict of ColumbiaFemaleHumansMaleMedically Underserved AreaMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationPatient SelectionSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultClinical trialDermatologyDiversityPublic knowledgeRecruitmentSurvey

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.