Enesha M Cobb1,2, Achamyeleh Gebremariam3, Dianne Singer3, Matthew M Davis3,4,5,6. 1. Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor VA Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 3. Child Health Evaluation and Research (CHEAR) Unit, Division of General Pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 4. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 5. Division of General Medicine, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy and School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 6. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We determined national levels of public participation in medical research study design. We compared public interest in medical research participation (MRP) in studies overall, versus studies explicitly designed with public involvement. METHOD: Cross-sectional household survey of US population in June 2013. Descriptive statistics estimated participation in medical research study design. Chi-square test compared levels of interest in MRP if respondent knew patients or community members helped design the study. RESULTS: Of 2,048 respondents (participation rate 60%), 5% knew someone who had helped design a medical research study. There was no association between having known someone or personal participation in study design and willingness to engage in MRP. Although the overall proportion of respondents who would consider MRP initially (51%) was similar to the proportion who would consider MRP with community member involvement in study design (49%), the changes in respondents' views across the different scenarios were significantly greater than what would have been expected by chance. CONCLUSIONS: We found similar levels of interest in MRP whether or not the public is involved in medical research study design. This finding may indicate that public involvement in study design, like community-based participatory research, may not affect overall rates of MRP.
PURPOSE: We determined national levels of public participation in medical research study design. We compared public interest in medical research participation (MRP) in studies overall, versus studies explicitly designed with public involvement. METHOD: Cross-sectional household survey of US population in June 2013. Descriptive statistics estimated participation in medical research study design. Chi-square test compared levels of interest in MRP if respondent knew patients or community members helped design the study. RESULTS: Of 2,048 respondents (participation rate 60%), 5% knew someone who had helped design a medical research study. There was no association between having known someone or personal participation in study design and willingness to engage in MRP. Although the overall proportion of respondents who would consider MRP initially (51%) was similar to the proportion who would consider MRP with community member involvement in study design (49%), the changes in respondents' views across the different scenarios were significantly greater than what would have been expected by chance. CONCLUSIONS: We found similar levels of interest in MRP whether or not the public is involved in medical research study design. This finding may indicate that public involvement in study design, like community-based participatory research, may not affect overall rates of MRP.
Authors: Michelle L Macy; Sarah J Clark; Gary L Freed; Amy T Butchart; Dianne C Singer; Comilla Sasson; William J Meurer; Matthew M Davis Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Matthew M Davis; Sarah J Clark; Amy T Butchart; Dianne C Singer; Thomas P Shanley; Debbie S Gipson Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2013-01-14 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Juan Pablo Domecq; Gabriela Prutsky; Tarig Elraiyah; Zhen Wang; Mohammed Nabhan; Nathan Shippee; Juan Pablo Brito; Kasey Boehmer; Rim Hasan; Belal Firwana; Patricia Erwin; David Eton; Jeff Sloan; Victor Montori; Noor Asi; Abd Moain Abu Dabrh; Mohammad Hassan Murad Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 2.655