Smirnoff M, Wilets I, Ragin D F, Adams R, Holohan J, Rhodes R, Winkel G, Ricci E M, Clesca C, Richardson L D
a Department of Emergency Medicine , Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
b Department of Psychology , Montclair State University.
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2018 Jan-Mar;9(1):39-47. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2018.1432718. Epub 2018 Feb 16.
To promote justice in research practice and rectify health disparities, greater diversity in research participation is needed. Lack of trust in medical research is one of the most significant obstacles to research participation. Multiple variables have been identified as factors associated with research participant trust/mistrust. A conceptual model that provides meaningful insight into the interplay of factors impacting trust may promote more ethical research practice and provide an enhanced, actionable understanding of participant mistrust.
A structured survey was developed to capture attitudes toward research conducted in emergency situations; this article focuses on items designed to assess respondents' level of trust or mistrust in medical research in general. Community-based interviews were conducted in English or Spanish with 355 New York City residents (white 42%, African American 29%, Latino 22%).
Generally favorable attitudes toward research were expressed by a majority (85.3%), but many respondents expressed mistrust. Factor analysis yielded four specific domains of trust/mistrust, each of which was associated with different demographic variables: general trustworthiness (older age, not disabled); perceptions of discrimination (African American, Latino, Spanish language preference); perceptions of deception (prior research experience, African American); and perceptions of exploitation (less education).
The four domains identified in the analysis provide a framework for understanding specific areas of research trust/mistrust among disparate study populations. This model offers a conceptual basis for the design of tailored interventions that target specific groups to promote trust of individual researchers and research institutions as well as to facilitate broader research participation.
为促进研究实践中的公平并纠正健康差异,需要在研究参与方面实现更大的多样性。对医学研究缺乏信任是参与研究的最重大障碍之一。多个变量已被确定为与研究参与者的信任/不信任相关的因素。一个能深入洞察影响信任的因素之间相互作用的概念模型,可能会促进更符合伦理的研究实践,并增强对参与者不信任的可操作理解。
开展了一项结构化调查,以了解对在紧急情况下进行的研究的态度;本文重点关注旨在评估受访者对一般医学研究的信任或不信任程度的项目。以英语或西班牙语对355名纽约市居民(白人占42%,非裔美国人占29%,拉丁裔占22%)进行了社区访谈。
大多数受访者(85.3%)对研究表达了总体上积极的态度,但许多受访者表示不信任。因子分析得出了信任/不信任的四个具体领域,每个领域都与不同的人口统计学变量相关:一般可信度(年龄较大、无残疾);对歧视的认知(非裔美国人、拉丁裔、偏好西班牙语);对欺骗的认知(有先前研究经历、非裔美国人);以及对剥削的认知(受教育程度较低)。
分析中确定的这四个领域为理解不同研究人群中研究信任/不信任的特定领域提供了一个框架。该模型为设计针对性干预措施提供了概念基础,这些措施针对特定群体,以促进对个别研究人员和研究机构的信任,并促进更广泛的研究参与。