↓ Skip to main content

Exploring Willingness to Participate in Clinical Trials by Ethnicity

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Exploring Willingness to Participate in Clinical Trials by Ethnicity
Published in
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40615-016-0280-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katrina L. Pariera, Sheila T. Murphy, Jingbo Meng, Margaret L. McLaughlin

Abstract

African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans are disproportionately affected by cancer, yet underrepresented in cancer clinical trials. Because of this, it is important to understand how attitudes and beliefs about clinical trials vary by ethnicity. A national, random sample of 860 adults was given an online survey about attitudes toward clinical trials. We examined willingness to participate in clinical trials, attitudes toward clinical trials, trust in doctors, attitudes toward alternative and complementary medicine, and preferred information channels. Results indicate that African-American and Hispanic-American participants have more negative attitudes about clinical trials, more distrust toward doctors, more interest in complementary and alternative medicine, and less willingness to participate in clinical trials than white/non-Hispanics, although specific factors affecting willingness to participate vary. The channels people turn to for information on clinical trials also varied by ethnicity. These results help explain the ethnic disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment by highlighting some potential underlying causes and drawing attention to areas of importance to these groups.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 18 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Psychology 4 7%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 23 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 02 November 2016.
All research outputs
#2,823,219
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
#249
of 1,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,223
of 337,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 337,069 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.