ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2026
Engendering trustworthiness in the community: Strategies for researchers.
Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BackgroundDespite significant advances in Alzheimer's disease treatment, underrepresentation of ethnoracialized groups in clinical trials limit the generalizability of study findings. Though mistrust in health care research is a known barrier to clinical trial participation, methods are needed to quantitate this multidimensional subjective term. This study investigated how Black participants view trustworthiness.ObjectiveTo provide an overview of participants' views of a trustworthy study design and investigator.MethodsThis qualitative study utilized focus group discussions with Black participants 45 years and older. Transcripts were coded by three researchers by means of content analysis. After central categories were identified using concept mapping, we constructed a conceptual model of trust to reflect participants' views of trustworthiness.ResultsParticipants self-identified as Black, were a mean age of 62, and predominantly female (80%). Focus group analysis revealed that a trustworthy study design and its impact as well as a trustworthy investigator were central categories of trustworthiness. Comprehensive study outlines, detailed information on the disease being studied, and sharing of study results improved participants' willingness to be involved in studies. Participants also value researchers who are scientifically and culturally competent, knowledgeable, attentive and who engage in education and sharing comprehensive resources on diseases impacting vulnerable populations.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that trustworthy features of the study design and researcher characteristics can provide a foothold to build trust with a population whose mistrust of research is well-documented. Further research on trustworthiness is necessary to develop tools to create a framework for building a trustworthy research environment.
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.