ArticlePloS one2025
Sources of successful participant engagement in a public health research study: A focus on a Latino community.
Article in PloS one, 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLatino populations remain vastly underrepresented in clinical and translational research. This study aims to characterize the most common sources of successful participant engagement within our sample.
methodsBetween February 2022 and March 2023, research staff systematically recorded how participants learned about an ongoing study (which we term source of successful participant engagement) designed to co-create and implement a COVID-19 testing program in a U.S./Mexico border community. Demographic characteristics were correlated with each source of participant engagement at the univariate level using a chi-squared test and, if significant, were included in a multinomial logistic regression model to determine the association between participant characteristics and source of participant engagement.
resultsA total of 2836 individuals responded to questions regarding source of participant engagement; the most common responses were: Word of Mouth (32%), Clinic/Provider referral (32%), and Walk Up to the testing site (21%). Males were 35% less likely than female participants to report having heard of the study through their Clinic/Provider compared to Walk Up (p < .01). Participants <18 years of age were 2.78 times as likely compared to individuals >54 years of age to have learned about the study through Word of Mouth compared to Walk Up (p < .01). Compared to Walk Up, participants who lived outside San Ysidro were 2.36 times more likely to be recruited through their Clinic/Provider (p < .01) and 2.11 times more likely through Word of Mouth (p < .01), compared those in San Ysidro. Education and clinical symptoms were not significantly associated with engagement source.
conclusionAdvancing our understanding of sources of successful participant engagement in marginalized communities is necessary to increase equitable participation in clinical and translational research.
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.