| Title |
The Role of Health Literacy on African American and Hispanic/Latino Perspectives on Cancer Clinical Trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cancer Education, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13187-011-0300-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kiameesha R. Evans, M. Jane Lewis, Shawna V. Hudson |
| Abstract |
Although cancer clinical trials are important for discovering lifesaving therapies, participation remains low among racial/ethnic minorities, and little research explores the role of health literacy in racial/ethnic minority perceptions of cancer clinical trials (CCTs). Five focus groups (n = 50) with African American and Hispanic participants explored CCT perceptions using a multidimensional health literacy framework. We found poor scientific literacy including misconceptions of scientific information, perceptions of clinical trials as uncertain and fear; limited civic literacy around topics of trust, perceptions of participants as guinea pigs, and concerns about of IRB protections; and cultural literacy challenges regarding the importance of home remedies for health, use of native language, and the importance of race/ethnicity matching to health care professionals. Results highlight the importance of attending to scientific literacy, cultural literacy, and civic literacy. Future educational interventions regarding cancer clinical trials should address the importance of health literacy in understanding cancer clinical trial decision making. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 131 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 15% |
| Researcher | 19 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 29 | 21% |
| Unknown | 24 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 24 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 10% |
| Psychology | 12 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 22 | 16% |
| Unknown | 30 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 July 2021.
All research outputs
#6,786,775
of 23,907,431 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Education
#246
of 1,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,328
of 249,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Education
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,907,431 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,201 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 249,006 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.