Attitudes and views of the general public towards research participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the challenges of recruitment into clinical trials are well described, little is known about the public's perceptions towards research. AIMS: We sought to describe the attitudes, beliefs and knowledge of the public towards research and research participation, focusing on clinical trials, contrast these attributes among individuals with different relationships with the healthcare system and to identify predictors of willingness to participate. METHODS: We conducted a self-administered cross-sectional survey of patients and their significant others in two clinics and two intensive care unit waiting rooms and in three public venues. RESULTS: We analysed responses from 417 respondents (102 and 105 in dialysis and oncology clinics, and 106 in intensive care unit (ICU) waiting rooms, 104 in public locations). While most (68.3%) respondents favoured the use of humans in clinical trials, 53% felt that trial participants always or almost always receive the best quality of care, only 30.4% had participated in clinical research. Approximately 70% felt that subjects are always advised of the risks and benefits of participation, and 30% expressed ambiguity regarding whether participants are informed of their involvement. Oncology and dialysis respondents were the most and least informed regarding research methods and ethics. The perceived risks and benefits associated with clinical circumstances influence research participation decisions and vary with healthcare experiences. We identified six predictors of willingness to participate. CONCLUSION: Attitudes of the public towards research participation are beleaguered by misconceptions. Stakeholders in clinical research must educate the general public regarding research methods and ethics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".