ArticleWellbeing, space and society2026
Reach and representativeness within a rural randomized controlled trial designed to improve community health through civic engagement for built environment change in Texas and New York.
Article in Wellbeing, space and society, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Community-based trials are important for developing effective, real-world health improvement approaches that address built environment changes, but they often lack rural representation. This paper reports on community ( Methods: Weighted means of publicly available data by Zip Code Tabulation Area were calculated for community characteristics. Reach was calculated as the proportion of study participants enrolled in each community out of the total number of adults in the community. Participant means for each community were calculated for sociodemographic and health variables. Chi-square statistics and ratios of study participants to target populations were also calculated. Results: On average, the CC study reached 1.3 % of the adult population across communities. Study communities were similar to rural nationwide and rural state populations in sociodemographic and health variables with some exceptions related to race and ethnicity. The study participant population was similar to their community population in many characteristics but differed in few (e.g., in 2-3 communities, participants were less likely to be older than 65; less likely to be Black or Hispanic; more likely to be unemployed; and/or less likely to be in fair or poor health). Conclusions: These findings indicate that the CC study had reach and representativeness of rural communities and their residents in ranges similar to previous rural studies. Clearer standards for comparing differences between study samples and target populations are needed to ensure generalizability of future trials.
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.