IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v10y2023i1d10.1057_s41599-023-01960-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Variations in racial and ethnic groups’ trust in researchers associated with willingness to participate in research

Author

Listed:
  • William T. Hu

    (Rutgers Institute for Health, Health Care Policy, and Aging Research)

  • Stephanie M. Bergren

    (Rutgers Institute for Health, Health Care Policy, and Aging Research)

  • Dana K. Dychtwald

    (Rutgers Institute for Health, Health Care Policy, and Aging Research)

  • Yiming Ma

    (Rutgers Institute for Health, Health Care Policy, and Aging Research)

  • XinQi Dong

    (Rutgers Institute for Health, Health Care Policy, and Aging Research)

Abstract

Low enrollment in U.S. biomedical research by non-White adults has historically been attributed to mistrust, but few studies have simultaneously examined dimensions of trust in three or more racial/ethnic groups. Leveraging the racial/ethnic diversity of New Jersey, we prospectively recruited 293 adults (72% women, 38% older than 54 years of age) between October 2020 and February 2022 to complete two anonymous surveys in English or one of the common languages (e.g., Spanish, Mandarin Chinese). The first consisted of 12 Likert-scale questions related to trust in biomedical researchers (according to safety, equity, transparency), and the second assessed willingness to consider participation in eight common research activities (health-related survey, blood collection, genetic analysis, medication study, etc). Participants self-reported as Hispanic (n = 102), Black (n = 49), Chinese (n = 48), other Asian (n = 53), or White (n = 41) race/ethnicity. Factor analysis showed three aspects related to trust in researchers: researchers as fiduciaries for research participants, racial/ethnic equity in research, and transparency. Importantly, we observed differences in the relationship between mistrust and willingness to participate. Whereas Chinese respondents’ low trust in researchers mediated their low interest in research involving more than health-related surveys, Hispanic respondents’ low trust in research equity did not deter high willingness to participate in research involving blood and genetic analysis. We caution that a generic association between trust and research participation should not be broadly assumed, and biomedical researchers should prospectively assess this relationship within each minoritized group to avoid hasty generalization.

Suggested Citation

  • William T. Hu & Stephanie M. Bergren & Dana K. Dychtwald & Yiming Ma & XinQi Dong, 2023. "Variations in racial and ethnic groups’ trust in researchers associated with willingness to participate in research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-01960-z
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-023-01960-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-023-01960-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-023-01960-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul R Ward & Loreen Mamerow & Samantha B Meyer, 2014. "Interpersonal Trust across Six Asia-Pacific Countries: Testing and Extending the ‘High Trust Society’ and ‘Low Trust Society’ Theory," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2023. "The Preference Survey Module: A Validated Instrument for Measuring Risk, Time, and Social Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 1935-1950, April.
    3. Cees van der Eijk & Jonathan Rose, 2015. "Risky Business: Factor Analysis of Survey Data – Assessing the Probability of Incorrect Dimensionalisation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-31, March.
    4. Fisher, J.A. & Kalbaugh, C.A., 2011. "Challenging assumptions about minority participation in US clinical research," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 101(12), pages 2217-2222.
    5. Wassim Tarraf & Gail A Jensen & Heather E Dillaway & Priscilla M Vásquez & Hector M González & J Scott Brown, 2020. "Trajectories of Aging Among U.S. Older Adults: Mixed Evidence for a Hispanic Paradox," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 75(3), pages 601-612.
    6. Fuller-Thomson, E. & Brennenstuhl, S. & Hurd, M., 2011. "Comparison of disability rates among older adults in aggregated and separate Asian American/Pacific Islander subpopulations," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 101(1), pages 94-100.
    7. George, S. & Duran, N. & Norris, K., 2014. "A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 104(2), pages 16-31.
    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. Alana Smith & Gregory A. Vidal & Elizabeth Pritchard & Ryan Blue & Michelle Y. Martin & LaShanta J. Rice & Gwendolynn Brown & Athena Starlard-Davenport, 2018. "Sistas Taking a Stand for Breast Cancer Research (STAR) Study: A Community-Based Participatory Genetic Research Study to Enhance Participation and Breast Cancer Equity among African American Women in ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Daniel Horn & Hubert Kiss Janos & Sára Khayouti, 2020. "Does trust associate with political regime?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2013, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    3. Johannes Abeler & Armin Falk & Fabian Kosse, 2021. "Malleability of Preferences for Honesty," CESifo Working Paper Series 9033, CESifo.
    4. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    5. Uwe Sunde & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & Armin Falkbriq & David Huffman & Gerrit Meyerheim, 2022. "Patience and Comparative Development," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(5), pages 2806-2840.
    6. Fabian Kosse & Thomas Deckers & Pia Pinger & Hannah Schildberg-Hörisch & Armin Falk, 2020. "The Formation of Prosociality: Causal Evidence on the Role of Social Environment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(2), pages 434-467.
    7. Bartels, Lara & Kesternich, Martin, 2022. "Motivate the crowd or crowd- them out? The impact of local government spending on the voluntary provision of a green public good," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-040, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Rodríguez Chatruc, Marisol & Rozo, Sandra, 2021. "How Does it Feel to Be Part of the Minority?: Impacts of Perspective Taking on Prosocial Behavior," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 11599, Inter-American Development Bank.
    9. Paola Giuliano & Paola Sapienza, 2020. "The Cost of Being Too Patient," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 110, pages 314-318, May.
    10. Carvajal, Daniel & Franco, Catalina & Isaksson, Siri, 2024. "Will Artificial Intelligence Get in the Way of Achieving Gender Equality?," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 3/2024, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics, revised 31 Oct 2024.
    11. Valencia Caicedo, Felipe & Dohmen, Thomas & Pondorfer, Andreas, 2023. "Religion and cooperation across the globe," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 479-489.
    12. de Blasio, Guido & De Paola, Maria & Poy, Samuele & Scoppa, Vincenzo, 2018. "Risk Aversion and Entrepreneurship: New Evidence Exploiting Exposure to Massive Earthquakes in Italy," IZA Discussion Papers 12057, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Sonia OREFICCE & Climent Quintana-Domeque, 2021. "Gender inequality in COVID-19 times: evidence from UK prolific participants," JODE - Journal of Demographic Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 261-287, June.
    14. Christina Gravert, 2024. "From Intent to Inertia: Experimental Evidence from the Retail Electricity Market," CESifo Working Paper Series 11139, CESifo.
    15. Maite D. Laméris & Richard Jong-A-Pin & Rasmus Wiese, 2018. "An Experimental Test of the Validity of Survey-Measured Political Ideology," CESifo Working Paper Series 7139, CESifo.
    16. Amelia S Knopf & Peter Krombach & Amy J Katz & Rebecca Baker & Gregory Zimet, 2021. "Measuring research mistrust in adolescents and adults: Validity and reliability of an adapted version of the Group-Based Medical Mistrust Scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-9, January.
    17. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2021. "Nonverbal content and trust: An experiment on digital communication," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1517-1532, October.
    18. Marino Fages, Diego & Morales Cerda, Matías, 2022. "Migration and social preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    19. Arslan, Ruben C. & Brümmer, Martin & Dohmen, Thomas & Drewelies, Johanna & Hertwig, Ralph & Wagner, Gert G., 2020. "How people know their risk preference," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10.
    20. Datta, Nikhil, 2019. "Willing to pay for security: a discrete choice experiment to analyse labour supply preferences," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103390, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-01960-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.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.