ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2024
"Do they REALLY trust us"?: Lessons from a volunteer research registry.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 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.
- From screening to enrollment drop-offs: perspectives of minoritized participants in Indiana.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- "Deserved Trust": Perspectives in trust and trustworthiness by biomedical researchers in clinical and translational sciences.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: All IN for Health is a well-established community-academic partnership dedicated to helping improve the lives of Indiana residents by increasing health research literacy and promoting health resources, as well as opportunities to participate in research. It is sponsored by the Indiana Clinical and Translational Science Institute (I-CTSI). The study's purpose was to measure trust in biomedical research and healthcare organizations among research volunteers. Methods: The Relationship of Trust and Research Engagement (RTRE) survey was developed utilizing 3 validated scales. The RTRE consisted of 36 items in a 5-point Likert scale with three open-text questions. We conducted 3 focus groups with a total of 24 individuals ahead of the survey's launch. Recruitment was done through the All IN for Health newsletter. The survey was administered in the summer of 2022. Results: Six hundred and sixty-three individuals participated in the survey. Forty-one percent agreed that doctors do medical research for selfish reasons. Moreover, 50% disagree that patients get the same medical treatment regardless of race/ethnicity. Sixty-seven percent think it is safe to participate in medical research, yet 79% had never been asked to participate. Ten percent believe that researchers select minorities for their most dangerous studies and expose minoritized groups to diseases. Conclusion: The utilization of tools to measure trust will facilitate participant recruitment and will assist institutions and investigators alike in accountability. It is imperative, we work toward understanding our communities' trust in medical research, assessing our own trustworthiness, and critically reflect on the authenticity of our efforts.
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.