Suppr超能文献

“他们真的信任我们吗”?:来自志愿者研究登记处的经验教训。

"Do they REALLY trust us"?: Lessons from a volunteer research registry.

作者信息

Sotto-Santiago Sylk, Wiehe Sarah, Hudson Brenda, Slaven James, Vinaixa Conor, Bruns Rebecca, Claxton Gina, Delp Lynsey, Lynch Dustin, Moe Sharon

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

出版信息

J Clin Transl Sci. 2024 Nov 11;8(1):e196. doi: 10.1017/cts.2024.584. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

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.

摘要

背景

“全民健康”是一个成熟的社区-学术合作伙伴关系,致力于通过提高健康研究素养、推广健康资源以及提供参与研究的机会来改善印第安纳州居民的生活。它由印第安纳临床与转化科学研究所(I-CTSI)赞助。该研究的目的是衡量研究志愿者对生物医学研究和医疗保健组织的信任度。

方法

利用3个经过验证的量表开发了信任与研究参与关系(RTRE)调查。RTRE由36个项目组成,采用5点李克特量表,并包含3个开放式问题。在调查启动前,我们进行了3个焦点小组讨论,共有24人参与。招募是通过“全民健康”时事通讯进行的。调查于2022年夏季进行。

结果

663人参与了调查。41%的人同意医生进行医学研究是出于自私的原因。此外,50%的人不同意患者无论种族/民族都能得到相同的医疗待遇。67%的人认为参与医学研究是安全的,但79%的人从未被邀请参与。10%的人认为研究人员在最危险的研究中选择少数群体,并使少数群体接触疾病。

结论

使用工具来衡量信任将有助于招募参与者,并将协助机构和研究人员履行责任。我们必须努力了解社区对医学研究的信任,评估我们自身的可信度,并批判性地反思我们努力的真实性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e9fb/11626595/d5e36e5b032b/S2059866124005843_fig1.jpg

相似文献

2
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.

本文引用的文献

8
Effective Engagement Requires Trust and Being Trustworthy.有效的参与需要信任和值得信任。
Med Care. 2018 Oct;56 Suppl 10 Suppl 1(10 Suppl 1):S6-S8. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000953.
9
Who is trustworthy? Predicting trustworthy intentions and behavior.谁是值得信赖的?预测值得信赖的意图和行为。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2018 Sep;115(3):468-494. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000136. Epub 2018 Jul 12.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验