Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleMethodology

Development of a Measure to Assess Patient Trust in Medical Researchers

Arch G. Mainous, Daniel W. Smith, Mark E. Geesey and Barbara C. Tilley
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2006, 4 (3) 247-252; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.541
Arch G. Mainous III
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel W. Smith
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark E. Geesey
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Barbara C. Tilley
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Published eLetters

If you would like to comment on this article, click on Submit a Response to This article, below. We welcome your input.

Submit a Response to This Article
Compose eLetter

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • Moving Beyond Trust � Improving Racial/ethnic Participation in Clinical Research
    Hayden B Bosworth
    Published on: 19 June 2006
  • To Trust or Not to Trust, That is the Question
    Syed M. Ahmed
    Published on: 31 May 2006
  • Published on: (19 June 2006)
    Page navigation anchor for Moving Beyond Trust � Improving Racial/ethnic Participation in Clinical Research
    Moving Beyond Trust � Improving Racial/ethnic Participation in Clinical Research
    • Hayden B Bosworth, Durham, USA

    Mainous et al.’s development of a measure to assess patient trust in medical researchers is an important endeavor. The practical utility of the measure, however, needs further validation. While trust is likely to be one component of poor minority participation, it is not clear how much of an impact it actually has on participation rates. Other potentially more significant barriers to adequate minority recruitment incl...

    Show More

    Mainous et al.’s development of a measure to assess patient trust in medical researchers is an important endeavor. The practical utility of the measure, however, needs further validation. While trust is likely to be one component of poor minority participation, it is not clear how much of an impact it actually has on participation rates. Other potentially more significant barriers to adequate minority recruitment include researchers simply not asking minorities to participate. For example, Wendler et al. performed a systematic review of 20 health research studies that reported consent rates by race or ethnicity. They found that when invited, African Americans were not less likely and occasionally were more likely to consent to research participation compared to non-Hispanic whites 1. Thus, while trust may be an issue for some individuals, a myopic view of only focusing on trust will not likely substantially improve minority recruitment.

    Often times, minority retention is overlooked as more attention has been devoted to minority recruitment. In many cases, it is just as important to consider minority retention rates as it is to consider enrollment rates. Logistical barriers such as transportation may be more of an issue for minorities, particularly in the realm of retention. Ensuring adequate retention rates are essential to ensure appropriate interpretation of results.

    There lacks understanding of enrollment and retention among Latinos, the fastest growing minority segment of the United States 2. Issues regarding enrollment and retention potentially may vary among these individuals as opposed to African Americans and non-Hispanic Whites. For example, we have reported that Latinos trusted insurance companies and government entities more often than Whites or African Americans 3. Factors related to enrollment and retention are likely to vary by race/ethnic groups.

    Sample recruitment and retention are fundamental to conducting clinical research. Ways to improve recruitment and retention, in general, and specifically among racial and ethnic minorities, requires involvement of community members; community involvement is of key importance to gain access to difficult-to-reach groups 4-6. In addition, to ensure adequate minority enrollment and participation, tailoring interventions based upon perceptions as proposed by Mainous 7, may be beneficial as well. For example, African Americans are more likely than Whites to believe that doctors would not inform patients of risks 8 and that patients are sometimes deceived or misled by hospitals 9. Identifying those with negative perceptions of research and providing relevant information to address these perceptions will lead to improve enrollment and retention within these racial/ethnic minorities. Identifying ways to improve participation and retention of participants in clinical trials is essential to develop methods to reduce the racial/ethnic disparities in healthcare.

    1. Wendler D, Kington R, Madans J, et al. Are racial and ethnic minorities less willing to participate in health research? PLoS Med 2006;3(2):e19.

    2. National Population estimates, characteristics, National Demographic components of change Hispanic or Latino origin. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, 2004.

    3. Voils CI, Oddone EZ, Weinfurt KP, et al. Who trusts healthcare institutions? Results from a community-based sample. Ethn Dis 2005;15(1):97-103.

    4. Parrado EA, McQuiston, C., Flippen, C. Participatory survey research: Integrating community collaboration and quantitative methods for the study of gender and HIV risks among Hispanic Migrants. Sociological Methods and Research. 2005;34(2):204-239.

    5. Green L, Daniel M, Novick L. Partnerships and coalitions for community-based research. Public Health Rep 2001;116 Suppl 1:20-31.

    6. Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community- based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health 1998;19:173-202.

    7. Mainous AG, 3rd, Smith DW, Geesey ME, Tilley BC. Development of a measure to assess patient trust in medical researchers. Ann Fam Med 2006;4(3):247-52.

    8. Corbie-Smith G, Thomas SB, St George DM. Distrust, race, and research. Arch Intern Med 2002;162(21):2458-63.

    9. LaVeist TA, Nickerson KJ, Bowie JV. Attitudes about racism, medical mistrust, and satisfaction with care among African American and white cardiac patients. Med Care Res Rev 2000;57 Suppl 1:146-61.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (31 May 2006)
    Page navigation anchor for To Trust or Not to Trust, That is the Question
    To Trust or Not to Trust, That is the Question
    • Syed M. Ahmed, Milwaukee, USA

    I am very excited about this article and the authors’ work in the development of this scale. They addressed an important issue of trust which dictates the participation of our patient in medical research. I have few comments which are based on my personal experience and perspectives, not on hard research data.

    • I am having some difficulty in finding practical applicability of this instrument in research. Th...

    Show More

    I am very excited about this article and the authors’ work in the development of this scale. They addressed an important issue of trust which dictates the participation of our patient in medical research. I have few comments which are based on my personal experience and perspectives, not on hard research data.

    • I am having some difficulty in finding practical applicability of this instrument in research. The authors suggested “using it to screen population of interest regarding mistrust in medical researchers.” If this scale is used as a screening tool, then what do you do if you find your target population shows high levels of mistrust? Do you change the target population? How do you tailor recruitment? Do you avoid the mistrustful patients or educate them? If you decide to educate them, then, how do you educate them if they do not trust you?

    • That leads to the next set of questions: Are we asking half of the right question in terms of trust? Should we use scales on researchers to find if they are trustworthy? Are there some characteristics which all different ethnic groups find more trustworthy? Should we put the focus on us and consider the reason why some patients/communities participate, while others do not? From experience, all of us have learned that “who is asking to participate in a research project” was a key factor in patients’ decision to participate. Regardless of being a mistrustful patient or not, we know successful participation may happen when a physician, researcher, or nurse who a patient trusts asks him/her to participate.

    • Next question is what we do when patients do not “trust” the researchers. Over the years, I have divided researchers into three categories: (1) the researchers who patients and/or community trust, (2) a large group of researchers who have some positive skills but can use more training in how to work with patients and/or community. They need and will be helped by learning about cross/trans cultural issues, bidirectional dialogue, and effective community engagement, and (3) a small group of researchers, who lack all of the above skills to a significant degree. They may not be good candidates for working with patients and/or community.

    My comments are made in the spirit of initiating this discussion of participation of our patients/communities in medical research. The more we address this issue of patient/community participation seriously, the better we will be off in the future.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 4 (3)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 4 (3)
Vol. 4, Issue 3
1 May 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Development of a Measure to Assess Patient Trust in Medical Researchers
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
12 + 5 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Development of a Measure to Assess Patient Trust in Medical Researchers
Arch G. Mainous, Daniel W. Smith, Mark E. Geesey, Barbara C. Tilley
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2006, 4 (3) 247-252; DOI: 10.1370/afm.541

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Development of a Measure to Assess Patient Trust in Medical Researchers
Arch G. Mainous, Daniel W. Smith, Mark E. Geesey, Barbara C. Tilley
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2006, 4 (3) 247-252; DOI: 10.1370/afm.541
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • An Electronic Tool to Support Patient-Centered Broad Consent: A Multi-Arm Randomized Clinical Trial in Family Medicine
  • Factors Influencing Precision Medicine Knowledge and Attitudes
  • Physicians should declare financial incentives for recruiting minority ethnic patients into clinical trials
  • On TRACK: Medical Research Must Consider Context and Complexity
  • In This Issue: Communication in the Era of 'Personalized' Medicine
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Joint Display of Integrated Data Collection for Mixed Methods Research: An Illustration From a Pediatric Oncology Quality Improvement Study
  • Patient-Guided Tours: A Patient-Centered Methodology to Understand Patient Experiences of Health Care
  • Putting Evidence Into Practice: An Update on the US Preventive Services Task Force Methods for Developing Recommendations for Preventive Services
Show more Methodology

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Person groups:
    • Vulnerable populations
  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
  • Other topics:
    • Disparities in health and health care
    • Patient perspectives
    • Social / cultural context

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine