ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
A qualitative study of diversity in precision medicine research: The development and stakeholder assessment of a Diversity Decision Map.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Plasmonic and surface-enhanced Raman nanobiosensors for quantitative molecular detection.Discover nano · 2026Review
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
Introduction: The diversity gap in precision medicine research (PMR) participation has led to efforts to boost the inclusion of underrepresented populations. Yet our prior research shows that study teams need greater support to identify key decision-making issues that influence diversity and equity, weigh competing interests and tradeoffs, and make informed research choices. We therefore developed a Diversity Decision Map (DDM) to support the identification of and dialogue about study practices that impact diversity, inclusion, and equity. Methods: The DDM is empirically derived from a qualitative project that included a content analysis of documents, observations of research activities, and interviews with PMR stakeholders. We identified activities that influenced diversity goals and created a visual display of decision-making nodes, their upstream precedents, and downstream consequences. To assess the potential utility of the DDM, we conducted engagements with stakeholder groups (regulatory advisors, researchers, and community advisors). Results: These engagements indicated that the DDM helped diverse stakeholder groups trace tradeoffs of different study choices for diversity, inclusion, and equity, and suggest paths forward. Stakeholders agreed that the DDM could facilitate discussion of tradeoffs and decision-making about research resources and practices that impact diversity. Stakeholders felt that different groups could use the DDM to raise questions and dilemmas with each other, and shared suggestions to increase the utility of the DDM. Conclusion: Based on a research life course perspective, and real-world research experiences, we developed a tool to make transparent the tradeoffs of research decisions for diversity, inclusion, and equity in PMR.
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.