ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
The
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. 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.
- Digital and community-engaged approaches to improve research participant recruitment - Advice from forty convened experts.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Non-Randomized Pre-Post Testing to Evaluate Knowledge of Community Health Workers on Chronic Diseases After Asynchronous Online Training.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
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
Abstract
Introduction: Community Health Workers/Promotores de Salud (CHW/Ps) are trusted messengers embedded in their communities who bridge gaps in access to care, address misinformation, and promote health through culturally tailored education and outreach. The Methods: This 12-h, five-part training was developed collaboratively and delivered by experienced CHW/Ps. The curriculum included interactive components such as role-playing, IRB simulations, and the design of community-relevant research projects. The program was evaluated using a mixed-methods approach, including pre- and post-training surveys, satisfaction surveys, and 3- and 12-month follow-ups. Results: Between March and September 2023, 128 CHW/Ps completed the training; 103 (80.5%) completed the 12-month follow-up. Most participants identified as Latino/Hispanic (93%) and female (96%). Quantitative findings assessed knowledge gain (46.8% increase), attitudes toward research (49.1% reported an increased likelihood of research participation post-training), self-efficacy in research communication (overall average of 8 out of 10), and application of training in community settings (53.9% reported referring people directly to research studies). Qualitative findings highlighted increased understanding of research ethics, community impact, the importance of participation in research, and persistent barriers to participation such as mistrust and misinformation. Conclusion: The
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.