ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Respectful closure of a CEnR DNA integrity study: A bridge to sustained interactions with research participants.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Community engagement in research (CEnR) is fundamental to recruitment and retention in research studies. CEnR study closure, with a view to promote subsequent interactions with participants, can foster long-term relationships between research teams and participants. We detail the principles, procedures and outcomes of respectful closure in a study focused on scaling-up tools to measure DNA integrity in population samples. Methods: The study incorporated CEnR principles and practices, engaging a Community Advisory Board (CAB) to guide most study procedures. The CAB-designed closure protocol included 1) attempts at one-on-one contact via telephone, followed by a letter, if no contact was established; 2) provision of a study closure packet; 3) periodic mailing of study updates; and 4) a request for sustained interaction with the Community Engagement Team (CE Team), including participants' approval to receive invitations for future projects. Items 3 and 4 were framed as choices to further interaction and its extent. Results: Among 191 participants enrolled, 119 were contacted at closure (62% retention rate). Most frequently (97.5%), contacted participants agreed to receive information about new research projects, while 90.8% agreed to receive ongoing information about the DNA integrity study. Subsequently, the CE Team implemented two study update mailings and two CEnR studies, enrolling 18 participants in a consultative role and four in a collaborative role. Conclusions: Respectful study closure offers avenues for sustained interaction between CEnR teams and study participants, beyond the discrete boundaries of specific research projects. It can support the long-term connections that enable the positive outcomes of CEnR.
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.