Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41236174›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of community psychology2026

Maintaining trust in uncertain times: Funding pauses and the ethical cost to community-engaged research.

Brynn E Sheehan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of community psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

1 author.

Brynn E SheehanVirginia Health Sciences at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5328-8947

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Federal funding pauses, once considered rare, are increasingly disrupting the stability and continuity of community-engaged research. Even projects with active, awarded grants are experiencing the strain of funding uncertainty, raising substantive concerns among research teams and community partners. These disruptions extend beyond operational delays; they jeopardize the continuity of relationships developed through sustained, collaborative engagement. In the absence of clear information about a project's future, uncertainty undermines trust and challenges the ethical principles that guide human subjects research, particularly beneficence and justice. This paper draws on direct experience and insights from the broader field to examine the practical and ethical implications of funding instability in community-engaged research contexts. It further outlines structural recommendations to mitigate harm, including the establishment of bridge funding mechanisms, the integration of pause-contingency planning into grant proposals, and enhanced transparency from funding agencies. Institutional review boards and oversight entities may consider developing clear guidance for maintaining ethical obligations during funding disruptions. Research continuity must be recognized not as a procedural convenience, but as a foundational element of ethical research practice. Upholding the core values of community-engaged research necessitates systems explicitly designed to promote stability, accountability, and sustained partnership, even amid an increasingly unpredictable funding environment.

Indexed as

Community-Based Participatory ResearchFinancing, GovernmentResearch Support as TopicTrustEthics Committees, ResearchEthics, ResearchHumansUncertaintyUnited Statescommunity‐engaged researchfunding instabilityresearch continuityresearch ethicstrust

Identifiers

PMID41236174
PMCPMC13007744

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.