ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Understanding Participant Perspectives Toward the Formation of a Participant Advisory Board Within the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke Study: A National Qualitative Study.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough often used to inform clinical trials and public health campaigns, academic-community partnerships have been less frequently used in the context of large, national epidemiologic studies. These partnerships could enhance key aspects of the research process if appropriately leveraged. We aimed to elicit perspectives toward the formation of a participant advisory board in the REGARDS (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) study, a national prospective cohort study that enrolled >30 000 Black and White community-dwelling adults aged ≥45 years from 48 states from 2003 to 2007 with ongoing follow-up.
methodsFor this qualitative study, we used a convenience sampling approach to recruit participants. We conducted semistructured virtual interviews between May 2023 and July 2023. The Cargo and Mercer framework on academic-community partnerships in health equity research informed the interview guide and thematic analysis.
resultsThe 18 participants had a median age of 69 years, 67% were women, 39% were Black, and 78% had a college degree or higher. Four key themes emerged: (1) trust, diversity, mutual respect, and accountability; (2) sharing the purpose and scope of research and dissemination of science; (3) engagement, formalization, and maintenance; (4) social and environmental justice and translating knowledge into action.
conclusionsParticipants in this large epidemiologic cohort were interested in participating in a participant advisory board and saw its benefits. Our findings can inform the formation of the REGARDS study participant advisory board, including how it should be structured and guided. This has implications for other observational cohorts interested in including participants in an advisory capacity.
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.