ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024
Equitable community-based participatory research engagement with communities of color drives All of Us Wisconsin genomic research priorities.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- "There's no representation": a qualitative study of attitudes and motivations towards genomic research participation among Australian South Asians.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- The Estonian Biobank's journey from biobanking to personalized medicine.Nature communications · 2025Review
- Returning value to communities from the All of Us Research Program through innovative approaches for data use, analysis, dissemination, and research capacity building.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe NIH All of Us Research Program aims to advance personalized medicine by not only linking patient records, surveys, and genomic data but also engaging with participants, particularly from groups traditionally underrepresented in biomedical research (UBR). This study details how the dialogue between scientists and community members, including many from communities of color, shaped local research priorities. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe recruited area quantitative, basic, and clinical scientists as well as community members from our Community and Participant Advisory Boards with a predetermined interest in All of Us research as members of a Special Interest Group (SIG). An expert community engagement scientist facilitated 6 SIG meetings over the year, explicitly fostering openness and flexibility during conversations. We qualitatively analyzed discussions using a social movement framework tailored for community-based participatory research (CBPR) mobilization.
resultsThe SIG evolved through CBPR stages of emergence, coalescence, momentum, and maintenance/integration. Researchers prioritized community needs above personal academic interests while community members kept discussions focused on tangible return of value to communities. One key outcome includes SIG-driven shifts in programmatic and research priorities of the All of Us Research Program in Southeastern Wisconsin. One major challenge was building equitable conversations that balanced scientific rigor and community understanding. DISCUSSION: Our approach allowed for a rich dialogue to emerge. Points of connection and disconnection between community members and scientists offered important guidance for emerging areas of genomic inquiry.
conclusionOur study presents a robust foundation for future efforts to engage diverse communities in CBPR, particularly on healthcare concerns affecting UBR communities.
Indexed as
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.