ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Differentiated trust: navigating credibility landscapes in community-engaged research.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Community-engaged research (CEnR) depends on mutual credibility between researchers and communities, yet the trust environment in which these collaborations operate has shifted as public confidence becomes more conditional and politically structured. Drawing on scholarship in the sociology of trust, epistemic injustice, and related fields, this paper applies the concept of differentiated trust to community-engaged research. Differentiated trust describes a pattern in which people grant credibility selectively across knowledge authorities based on institutional experience, political identity, and information environment. Differentiated trust asks a related question about how credibility has already been sorted among competing authorities before the collaboration begins. The paper examines how differentiated trust illuminates the role of epistemic trust, epistemic injustice, and identity work in contexts where communities are navigating competing authorities on the health topics research addresses. The paper argues that attending to differentiated trust can sharpen the practical relevance of these concepts for CEnR design and evaluation.
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.