ArticleJournal of participatory medicine2025
Community Advisors' Effect on a Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial for Asthma Treatment: Retrospective Analysis.
Article in Journal of participatory medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Community advisors including patients, families, clinicians, and payers are important partners who can guide clinical research; yet, there is little evidence documenting the impact of community engagement on study changes and outcomes. Objective: This study aims to describe the effect of community advisor input on 2 concerns identified during the conduct of a clinical trial. Methods: Using data from the PREPARE (Person Empowered Asthma Relief) randomized clinical trial studying the use of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) as part of rescue therapy for asthma, we examined the effect of protocol changes suggested by community advisors to address study implementation concerns. Results: Community advisors addressed 2 issues that threatened the success of the research: low response rates to monthly outcome surveys and low reported use of ICS with nebulizer rescue treatments. Initial low survey response rates were addressed by changing reminder frequency, shortening the survey, reducing the burden of logging in, and adding a raffle prize for timely responses. In the pilot phase of the study, the overall 3-month survey response rate was 67% (64 completed of 96 possible surveys). After protocol changes, the survey response rate over the first 3 months was 96.08% (3404 completed of 3543 possible surveys) and was 87.38% (1032 of 1181 participants) for each individual's final 3 months; the overall response rate for the full study was 92.3%. For the full study, 72.1% (n=850) of 1181 participants completed all of their first three surveys compared with only 25% (n=8) of 32 pilot enrollees. Early low use of ICS with nebulizers was addressed by additional communication, reminder stickers, and designing a method to attach a provided ICS inhaler to the nebulizers. The percentage of people reporting use of 3 to 5 puffs of ICS with each nebulizer treatment rose from 42.1% (200/475) in the early full study to 75.4% (525/696) following the protocol changes. Conclusions: Multicomponent changes to the PREPARE protocol crafted by community advisors were associated with improved monthly survey rates and ICS adherence during nebulizer use.
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.