ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Participant and researcher understandings of research responsibilities in malawi: a comparative analysis.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCurrent literature seldom discusses the functions and duties of individuals participating in medical research and the importance they attribute to their research involvement. To fill this void, our study investigated participants' perceptions of their roles and responsibilities in the research context and compared these perceptions with those of research staff.
methodsA cross-section qualitative study with 21 semi-structured interviews with participants purposefully selected from clinical and non-clinical trials, and research staff. We also conducted two focus group discussions: one with participants from clinical trials and one from non-clinical trials. We analysed data using thematic analysis methods.
resultsThe responsibilities of research participants are understood differently between research participants and research staff. Two broad themes emerged from the findings: relational responsibilities of research participants and functional responsibilities of participants.
conclusionThere are differences in perceived responsibilities between researchers and participants, and this disconnect needs to be recognised. Researchers should focus on how best to communicate responsibilities to enhance awareness and achieve mutual understanding.
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.