IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i22p15168-d975487.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the Relationship between Medical Research Literacy and Respondents’ Expressed Likelihood to Participate in a Clinical Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Dykema

    (Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA
    University of Wisconsin Survey Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA)

  • Cameron P. Jones

    (University of Wisconsin Survey Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA
    Department of Statistics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA)

  • Dana Garbarski

    (Department of Sociology, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL 60660, USA)

  • Mia Farias

    (University of Wisconsin Survey Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA)

  • Dorothy Farrar Edwards

    (Departments of Kinesiology and Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA)

Abstract

Medical research literacy (MRL) is a facet of health literacy that measures a person’s understanding of informed consent and other aspects of participation in medical research. While existing research on MRL is limited, there are reasons to believe MRL may be associated with a willingness to participate in medical research. We use data from a racially balanced sample of survey respondents (n = 410): (1) to analyze how MRL scores vary by respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics; (2) to examine how MRL relates to respondents’ expressed likelihood to participate in a clinical trial; and (3) to provide considerations on the measurement of MRL. The results indicate no differences in MRL scores by race or gender; younger ( p < 0.05) and more educated ( p < 0.001) individuals have significantly higher MRL scores. Further, higher MRL scores are associated with significantly lower levels of expressed likelihood to participate in a clinical trial. Additionally, the MRL scale included both true and false statements, and analyses demonstrate significant differences in how these relate to outcomes. Altogether, the results signal that further research is needed to understand MRL and how it relates to socio-demographic characteristics associated with research participation and can be measured effectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Dykema & Cameron P. Jones & Dana Garbarski & Mia Farias & Dorothy Farrar Edwards, 2022. "Exploring the Relationship between Medical Research Literacy and Respondents’ Expressed Likelihood to Participate in a Clinical Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-13, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:22:p:15168-:d:975487
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/22/15168/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/22/15168/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lingnan He & Yue Chen & Xiling Xiong & Xiqian Zou & Kaisheng Lai, 2021. "Does Science Literacy Guarantee Resistance to Health Rumors? The Moderating Effect of Self-Efficacy of Science Literacy in the Relationship between Science Literacy and Rumor Belief," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-10, February.
    2. Nejc Plohl & Bojan Musil, 2022. "Understanding, Trusting, and Applying Scientific Insights to Improve Your Health: A Latent Profile Analysis Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-16, August.
    3. Margarita Echeverri & David Anderson & Anna María Nápoles & Jacqueline M. Haas & Marc E. Johnson & Friar Sergio A. Serrano, 2018. "Cancer Health Literacy and Willingness to Participate in Cancer Research and Donate Bio-Specimens," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Margarita Echeverri & David Anderson & Jacqueline M. Haas & Marc E. Johnson & Friar Sergio A. Serrano & Anna María Nápoles, 2020. "Testing the Preliminary Validity of a Multidimensional Framework for Studying the Effects of Cancer Health Literacy on Cancer Screening Behaviors among Diverse Populations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-20, April.
    2. Nanae Tanemura & Tsuyoshi Chiba, 2022. "The usefulness of a checklist approach-based confirmation scheme in identifying unreliable COVID-19-related health information: a case study in Japan," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-7, December.
    3. Monika Lamot & Katja Kerman & Andrej Kirbiš, 2022. "Distrustful, Dissatisfied, and Conspiratorial: A Latent Profile Analysis of COVID-19 Vaccination Rejection," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-11, August.
    4. Lingfei Wang & Mengmeng Yue & Guoyan Wang, 2023. "Too Real to be Questioned: Analysis of the Factors Influencing the Spread of Online Scientific Rumors in China," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:22:p:15168-:d:975487. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.