Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41496787›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025

Extending participant feedback beyond clinical studies: A modular system designed to connect researchers and participants.

Alicia Giordimaina Carmichael, Donna Walter, Brandon Patric Labbree, Boluwatife Dogari, Natalie Leonard, Kathryn Ward, Xiaoya Geng, Medha Raju, Jess Francis-Levin, Richard Gonzalez

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Alicia Giordimaina CarmichaelInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6181-8058
Donna WalterInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1626-4470
Brandon Patric LabbreeInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5893-4469
Boluwatife DogariInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4628-6976
Natalie LeonardTaubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8151-7869
Kathryn WardInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-9737-1585
Xiaoya GengInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0804-1314
Medha RajuAnderson School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5165-6951
Jess Francis-LevinInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8856-8095
Richard GonzalezInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6334-0430

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Declining participant engagement threatens human subjects research. Participant feedback systems (PFS) may combat this decline by empowering participants to evaluate their research experiences and share that feedback with researchers to identify targets for improvement. PFS signal that participant experiences are prioritized, making the request for feedback itself an intervention. PFS design work remains largely confined to clinical research. This exploratory study investigates the design parameters of extending PFS to nonclinical research. We conducted focus groups with nonclinical stakeholders: Experienced research participants (ERP) and research team members (RTM). Methods: ERP focus groups were organized by affinity (LGBTQIA+, BIPOC, persons with disabilities, neurodivergent, and a general group). RTM focus groups were organized by unit within the University of Michigan. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Ten focus groups (ERP: 5, Conclusion: Expanding PFS to nonclinical research requires balancing centralization and study-specific flexibility. While centralization enhances consistency, the diversity of nonclinical studies necessitates adaptable implementation. A hybrid model is proposed to optimize feasibility. Future research should refine and test this model.

Indexed as

engagementFeedbackqualitativeresearch participantssystem design

Identifiers

PMID41496787
PMCPMC12766513

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.