Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40529002›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025

Measuring trust in medical research: Perspectives from racial and ethnic communities underrepresented in research.

Sarah C Stevens, Leo Valadez, Foujan Moghimi, Monica Guerrero Vazquez, Hailey N Miller, Samuel Byiringiro, Cassia Lewis-Land, Roger S Clark, Tosin Tomiwa, Joyline Chepkorir and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

11 authors.

Sarah C StevensJohns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7599-0729
Leo ValadezJohns Hopkins University, Carey Business School, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Foujan MoghimiJohns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Monica Guerrero VazquezJohns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Hailey N MillerJohns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Samuel ByiringiroJohns Hopkins University, School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9165-0348
Cassia Lewis-LandJohns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Roger S ClarkCommunity Research Advisory Council of the Johns Hopkins Institute of Clinical and Translational Research, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Tosin TomiwaJohns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Joyline ChepkorirJohns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Cheryl R HimmelfarbJohns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchUM1TR004926 · NCATS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI STEPHEN N. DAVIS, Daniel Ernest Ford · 2024 to 2026
$28.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Underrepresentation of diverse populations in medical research undermines generalizability, exacerbates health disparities, and erodes trust in research institutions. This study aimed to identify a suitable survey instrument to measure trust in medical research among Black and Latino communities in Baltimore, Maryland. Methods: Based on a literature review, a committee selected two validated instruments for community evaluation: Perceptions of Research Trustworthiness (PoRT) and Trust in Medical Researchers (TiMRs). Both were translated into Spanish through a standardized process. Thirty-four individuals participated in four focus groups (two in English, two in Spanish). Participants reviewed and provided feedback on the instruments' relevance and clarity. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. Results: Initial reactions to the instruments were mixed. While 68% found TiMR easier to complete, 74% preferred PoRT. Key discussion themes included the relevance of the instrument for measuring trust, clarity of the questions, and concerns about reinforcing negative perceptions of research. Participants felt that PoRT better aligned with the research goal of measuring community trust in research, though TiMR was seen as easier to understand. Despite PoRT's lower reading level, some items were found to be more confusing than TiMR items. Conclusion: Community feedback highlighted the need to differentiate trust in medical research, researchers, and institutions. While PoRT and TiMR are acceptable instruments for measuring trust in medical research, refinement of both may be beneficial. Development and validation of instruments in multiple languages is needed to assess community trust in research and inform strategies to improve diverse participation in research.

Indexed as

community-engaged researchcommunity engagementhealth disparitiessurvey instrument evaluationTrust in medical researchunderrepresented study populations

Identifiers

PMID40529002
PMCPMC12171920

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.