“他们真的信任我们吗?”:来自志愿者研究登记处的经验教训。

IF 2.1 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Journal of Clinical and Translational Science Pub Date : 2024-11-11 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1017/cts.2024.584
Sylk Sotto-Santiago, Sarah Wiehe, Brenda Hudson, James Slaven, Conor Vinaixa, Rebecca Bruns, Gina Claxton, Lynsey Delp, Dustin Lynch, Sharon Moe
{"title":"“他们真的信任我们吗?”:来自志愿者研究登记处的经验教训。","authors":"Sylk Sotto-Santiago, Sarah Wiehe, Brenda Hudson, James Slaven, Conor Vinaixa, Rebecca Bruns, Gina Claxton, Lynsey Delp, Dustin Lynch, Sharon Moe","doi":"10.1017/cts.2024.584","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>All IN for Health is a well-established community-academic partnership dedicated to helping improve the lives of Indiana residents by increasing health research literacy and promoting health resources, as well as opportunities to participate in research. It is sponsored by the Indiana Clinical and Translational Science Institute (I-CTSI). The study's purpose was to measure trust in biomedical research and healthcare organizations among research volunteers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Relationship of Trust and Research Engagement (RTRE) survey was developed utilizing 3 validated scales. The RTRE consisted of 36 items in a 5-point Likert scale with three open-text questions. We conducted 3 focus groups with a total of 24 individuals ahead of the survey's launch. Recruitment was done through the All IN for Health newsletter. The survey was administered in the summer of 2022.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six hundred and sixty-three individuals participated in the survey. Forty-one percent agreed that doctors do medical research for selfish reasons. Moreover, 50% disagree that patients get the same medical treatment regardless of race/ethnicity. Sixty-seven percent think it is safe to participate in medical research, yet 79% had never been asked to participate. Ten percent believe that researchers select minorities for their most dangerous studies and expose minoritized groups to diseases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The utilization of tools to measure trust will facilitate participant recruitment and will assist institutions and investigators alike in accountability. It is imperative, we work toward understanding our communities' trust in medical research, assessing our own trustworthiness, and critically reflect on the authenticity of our efforts.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"8 1","pages":"e196"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11626595/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"Do they REALLY trust us\\\"?: Lessons from a volunteer research registry.\",\"authors\":\"Sylk Sotto-Santiago, Sarah Wiehe, Brenda Hudson, James Slaven, Conor Vinaixa, Rebecca Bruns, Gina Claxton, Lynsey Delp, Dustin Lynch, Sharon Moe\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cts.2024.584\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>All IN for Health is a well-established community-academic partnership dedicated to helping improve the lives of Indiana residents by increasing health research literacy and promoting health resources, as well as opportunities to participate in research. It is sponsored by the Indiana Clinical and Translational Science Institute (I-CTSI). The study's purpose was to measure trust in biomedical research and healthcare organizations among research volunteers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Relationship of Trust and Research Engagement (RTRE) survey was developed utilizing 3 validated scales. The RTRE consisted of 36 items in a 5-point Likert scale with three open-text questions. We conducted 3 focus groups with a total of 24 individuals ahead of the survey's launch. Recruitment was done through the All IN for Health newsletter. The survey was administered in the summer of 2022.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six hundred and sixty-three individuals participated in the survey. Forty-one percent agreed that doctors do medical research for selfish reasons. Moreover, 50% disagree that patients get the same medical treatment regardless of race/ethnicity. Sixty-seven percent think it is safe to participate in medical research, yet 79% had never been asked to participate. Ten percent believe that researchers select minorities for their most dangerous studies and expose minoritized groups to diseases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The utilization of tools to measure trust will facilitate participant recruitment and will assist institutions and investigators alike in accountability. It is imperative, we work toward understanding our communities' trust in medical research, assessing our own trustworthiness, and critically reflect on the authenticity of our efforts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"e196\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11626595/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.584\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.584","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:All IN for Health是一个建立良好的社区-学术伙伴关系,致力于通过提高健康研究素养和促进健康资源以及参与研究的机会来帮助改善印第安纳州居民的生活。它是由印第安纳临床和转化科学研究所(I-CTSI)赞助的。这项研究的目的是衡量研究志愿者对生物医学研究和医疗机构的信任程度。方法:采用3份经验证的量表进行信任与研究投入关系(RTRE)调查。RTRE包括5分李克特量表中的36个项目,其中有三个开放文本问题。在调查开始之前,我们进行了3个焦点小组,共有24人参加。招聘工作是通过“全民健康”通讯进行的。该调查于2022年夏天进行。结果:663人参与了调查。41%的人认为医生从事医学研究是出于自私的原因。此外,50%的人不同意病人不论种族/民族都能得到同样的治疗。67%的人认为参与医学研究是安全的,但79%的人从未被要求参与。10%的人认为,研究人员选择少数群体进行最危险的研究,并使少数群体接触疾病。结论:利用工具来衡量信任将促进参与者的招募,并将有助于机构和调查人员的问责制。我们必须努力了解社区对医学研究的信任,评估我们自己的可信度,并批判性地反思我们努力的真实性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"Do they REALLY trust us"?: Lessons from a volunteer research registry.

Background: All IN for Health is a well-established community-academic partnership dedicated to helping improve the lives of Indiana residents by increasing health research literacy and promoting health resources, as well as opportunities to participate in research. It is sponsored by the Indiana Clinical and Translational Science Institute (I-CTSI). The study's purpose was to measure trust in biomedical research and healthcare organizations among research volunteers.

Methods: The Relationship of Trust and Research Engagement (RTRE) survey was developed utilizing 3 validated scales. The RTRE consisted of 36 items in a 5-point Likert scale with three open-text questions. We conducted 3 focus groups with a total of 24 individuals ahead of the survey's launch. Recruitment was done through the All IN for Health newsletter. The survey was administered in the summer of 2022.

Results: Six hundred and sixty-three individuals participated in the survey. Forty-one percent agreed that doctors do medical research for selfish reasons. Moreover, 50% disagree that patients get the same medical treatment regardless of race/ethnicity. Sixty-seven percent think it is safe to participate in medical research, yet 79% had never been asked to participate. Ten percent believe that researchers select minorities for their most dangerous studies and expose minoritized groups to diseases.

Conclusion: The utilization of tools to measure trust will facilitate participant recruitment and will assist institutions and investigators alike in accountability. It is imperative, we work toward understanding our communities' trust in medical research, assessing our own trustworthiness, and critically reflect on the authenticity of our efforts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
26.90%
发文量
437
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Health impacts of a remotely delivered prolonged nightly fasting intervention in stressed adults with memory decline and obesity: A nationwide randomized controlled pilot trial - ADDENDUM. Erratum: 489 Nasal-derived Extracellular Vesicles (EVs) carry a cargo of antiviral and immunomodulatory molecules - CORRIGENDUM. Local context review by single institutional review boards: Results from a modified Delphi process. Considerations and recommendations for collaborative research networks in epidemiology: Lessons learned from the diabetes LEAD Network. Training T-shaped translational scientists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1