Trust in research physicians as a key dimension of randomized controlled trial participation in clinical addictions research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In the development of pharmacotherapies for substance use disorders, willingness to participate in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among people who use drugs (PWUD) is influenced by numerous social and structural factors. Considering the criminalization and stigma experienced by PWUD and range of experiences in healthcare and research, PWUD may vary in their trust of health providers, health research physicians, or medical research processes. We therefore examine associations between trust in these three domains and willingness to participate in a hypothetical RCT for a novel pharmacotherapy for stimulant use among PWUD. Methods Data were derived from a cross-sectional questionnaire administered to participants using crack and/or cocaine from three cohort studies of PWUD in Vancouver ( N = 229). Results A majority of participants were “definitely” or “probably” willing to participate in an RCT. In multivariable ordinal regression, trust in research physicians was positively associated with willingness to participate, while trust in primary care providers or medical research processes were not significantly associated. Conclusions This data suggests trust in research physicians plays a role in RCT decision-making among PWUD, while trust in healthcare providers and research processes appears less relevant. These findings highlight opportunities for supporting RCT recruitment by building trust in research physicians.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.100 | 0.201 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".