ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Building and sustaining trust across communities: Lessons from a large-scale, community-based cancer needs assessment in New York City.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Trust is central to healthcare engagement yet remains underexamined in the context of large-scale community needs assessments. The Cancer Community Health Resources and Needs Assessment (Cancer CHRNA) was developed and implemented to identify multilevel determinants for cancer prevention and disparities; and examine the structural and system levels factors influencing healthcare access and prevention behaviors across populations represented in New York City. This study examines how trust emerged as a dominant theme and the relational and technical strategies community health workers (CHWs) and community-based organizations (CBOs) used to establish and sustain trust during survey implementation. Methods: Cancer CHRNA was implemented in community- and clinic-settings in nine languages: English, Arabic, Bangla, Chinese-Simplified/Traditional, Haitian-Creole, Korean, Spanish, Russian, and Urdu by bicultural and bilingual CHWs, in partnership with a network of CBOs. This qualitative process evaluation draws on data from CHW interviews, field notes, and a research team focus group. Analysis was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), with secondary coding informed by Metz et al.'s theoretical model for trusting relationships, which distinguishes relational and technical strategies of trust-building. Results: Three overarching themes related to trust emerged: 1) CHWs as trusted messengers embodying trustworthiness; 2) the role of CBO partnerships in enhancing trust; and 3) the development of sustained trust with both CBOs and community members. Across these themes, CHWs and CBOs employed relational strategies (authenticity, empathy, bi-directional communication, vulnerability) and technical strategies (cultural and linguistic concordance, demonstration of expertise, frequent interactions, responsiveness). These strategies activated trust, which in turn enabled successful recruitment and sustained engagement. Conclusion: To our knowledge, Cancer CHRNA is the first needs assessment to assess cancer behavioral and social priorities in nine languages, providing a unique exploration of the role of trust within such an assessment. Findings demonstrate that culturally and linguistically concordant CHWs, working in partnership with trusted CBOs, were central to fostering trust across the relational and technical strategies of trust building and facilitating broad community participation. By highlighting trust as the mechanism underpinning recruitment success, this study offers practical insights for designing future multilingual, community-based assessments.
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.