Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40599170›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025

Integrating community perspectives to improve survey completion rates in public health research by refining controversial survey elements.

Arleth A Escoto, Angel Lomeli, Maria Linda Burola, Breanna Reyes, Ana Perez-Portillo, Scarlet Flores, Kayleigh Kornher, Norma Porras, Ariel Cohen, Linda Salgin and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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.

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

14 authors.

Arleth A EscotoDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6502-6450
Angel LomeliDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6560-5387
Maria Linda BurolaDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Breanna ReyesDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Ana Perez-PortilloDepartment of Research and Health Promotion, San Ysidro Health, CA, USA.
Scarlet FloresDepartment of Research and Health Promotion, San Ysidro Health, CA, USA.
Kayleigh KornherDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Norma PorrasDepartment of Research and Health Promotion, San Ysidro Health, CA, USA.
Ariel CohenDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Linda SalginDepartment of Research and Health Promotion, San Ysidro Health, CA, USA.
Borsika A RabinHerbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Louise C LaurentDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Marva SeifertDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Nicole A StadnickAltman Clinical and Translational Research Institute Dissemination and Implementation Science Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Many factors can impact survey completion rates, including survey length, sensitivity of the topics addressed, and clarity of wording. This study used cognitive interviews (CIs), a methodological tool that can aid in developing and refining elements for multi-faceted assessments, and previous survey response patterns to refine, streamline, and increase response rates of RADx-UP Common Data Elements (CDEs) for survey/questionnaire use. Methods: Ten previously enrolled CO-CREATE study participants were interviewed between May-June 2023. Interviewees identified CDEs that were "confusing, uncomfortable, and/or not applicable," along with their reasoning. Interview data were analyzed using a rapid qualitative analytic approach, resulting in a summary matrix categorized by language. For further contextualization, CDE response rates were calculated for the 9147 surveys administered during the CO-CREATE study (May 2021-March 2023) and compared against their survey position. Results: Of the 94 CDEs evaluated in the CIs, 20 (21.3%) were flagged by one or more interviewees. Nine (9.6%) English while fourteen (14.9%) Spanish CDEs were flagged by interviewees, with some overlap. Also, CDE response rates differed according to position in the survey, with lower response rates for questions positioned later in the survey. Following review by the research team and the RADx-UP program, 10 English and 15 Spanish were revised, and seven were removed in both languages in the final survey. Conclusion: Our findings underscore the importance of integrating community member perspectives to enhance the relevance and clarity of assessment instruments, optimizing the impact of public health research among underrepresented populations.

Indexed as

common data elementsCommunity engagementNational Institutes of Health researchpublic healthunderserved communities

Identifiers

PMID40599170
PMCPMC12209967

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.