IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/clnure/v27y2018i7p790-799.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defining Research: The Effect of Linguistic Choices on the Intentions to Participate in Clinical Research

Author

Listed:
  • Yulia A. Strekalova

Abstract

Significant barriers to participant recruitment for clinical research (CR) are related to effective communication, and nurse coordinators are entrusted with being knowledge brokers between investigators and prospective participants. This prospective cohort study sought to identify linguistic choices that could inform and facilitate recruitment efforts. Healthy adults ( N = 204) were invited to join an online survey to assess the likelihood of participation in CR based on short and extended definitions of CR. Five short definitions included clinical trial, clinical study, health-related research study, community participatory study, and quality improvement study. The likelihood of participation in CR was the lowest for clinical trial and the highest for health-related research study. However, when only an extended definition was provided, those differences were not observed. A linguistic change from trial to study could lead to positive attitude toward CR and improvements in recruitment. However, ethical implications of linguistic choices should be considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Yulia A. Strekalova, 2018. "Defining Research: The Effect of Linguistic Choices on the Intentions to Participate in Clinical Research," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 27(7), pages 790-799, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:27:y:2018:i:7:p:790-799
    DOI: 10.1177/1054773817713179
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1054773817713179
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1054773817713179?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bourhis, Richard Y. & Roth, Sharon & MacQueen, Glenda, 1989. "Communication in the hospital setting: A survey of medical and everyday language use amongst patients, nurses and doctors," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 339-346, January.
    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. Chatwin, John & Kennedy, Anne & Firth, Adam & Povey, Andrew & Rogers, Anne & Sanders, Caroline, 2014. "How potentially serious symptom changes are talked about and managed in COPD clinical review consultations: A micro-analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 120-136.
    2. Roscigno, Cecelia I. & Savage, Teresa A. & Grant, Gerald & Philipsen, Gerry, 2013. "How healthcare provider talk with parents of children following severe traumatic brain injury is perceived in early acute care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 32-39.
    3. Vrana, Scott R. & Vrana, Dylan T. & Penner, Louis A. & Eggly, Susan & Slatcher, Richard B. & Hagiwara, Nao, 2018. "Latent Semantic Analysis: A new measure of patient-physician communication," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 22-26.
    4. Amanda Henderson, 2006. "Boundaries around the ‘well‐informed’ patient: the contribution of Schutz to inform nurses’ interactions," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 4-10, January.

    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:sae:clnure:v:27:y:2018:i:7:p:790-799. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.