Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42232957›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2026

Differentiated trust: navigating credibility landscapes in community-engaged research.

Steven L Arxer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Steven L ArxerDepartment of Sociology & Anthropology, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Community-Based Participatory ResearchTrustCooperative BehaviorHumansResearch Personnelcommunity-engaged researchcommunity knowledgedifferentiated trustparticipatory partnershipsresearcher positionalitytrust work

Identifiers

PMID42232957
PMCPMC13223128

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.