ArticleTrials2026
Partially randomized preference trials in carceral health research: a methodology to advance equity and inclusion.
Article in Trials, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncarcerated people experience disproportionately poor health outcomes yet often remain excluded from clinical research due to ethical concerns of limited autonomy and coercion. As a result, traditional randomized controlled trials face significant challenges in carceral settings, driven by mistrust of the medical system, randomization limiting choice, and logistical barriers with blinding and masking. These challenges necessitate alternative methodologies that balance scientific rigor while empowering participant choice. MAIN TEXT: This commentary proposes partially randomized preference trials as a methodology to advance equity and inclusion in carceral health research. In these hybrid designs, participants with strong preferences choose their intervention, while those without strong preferences are randomized. This approach facilitates participant autonomy while maintaining causal inference capabilities. Further, the design allows researchers to quantify preference and selection effects, enhancing external validity (generalizability), and can increase patient recruitment and retention. We discuss practical considerations including sample size calculations and data analysis approaches that estimate treatment effects, selection bias, and preference bias.
conclusionsPartially randomized preference trials are a way to generate rigorous evidence in carceral settings while respecting participant autonomy. They may also be useful for engaging other communities with limited autonomy. This approach should be considered as a tool for advancing health equity and inclusion in research.
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.