Evidence mapPaperPMID 41244815Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025

Perceptions and attitudes toward clinical trial participation: a study on

Aisha Gambo, Musa Babashani, Nceba Gqaleni, Limakatso Lebina

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Aisha GamboDiscipline of Traditional Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Musa BabashaniDepartment of Medicine, Bayero University Kano, Kano, Nigeria.
Nceba GqaleniDiscipline of Traditional Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Limakatso LebinaAfrica Health Research Institute, Durban, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Participation of patients in well-designed clinical trials forms the essence of all clinical research. PLHIV and receiving ART at AKTH, Kano State, Nigeria, were invited to participate in a six-month Methods: A questionnaire interview was conducted on those who participated and those who declined. Data was analysed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: All the reasons for participation in clinical trials were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Reasons such as "To help myself" and "To improve my health" both have a perfect mean score of 1.0000 and a standard deviation of 0.0000, indicating reasons as the most important for participation. "To help others" (mean = 1.9379) and "Asked by the doctor" (mean = 2.4237) were moderately endorsed. "For the money" (mean = 3.0000) was the least supported among tangible reasons. Most participants understood the consent form, agreed they gained something from participating, felt respected and treated with dignity, trusted that their information would remain private, and believed the research would benefit others. Participation was largely seen as a free and meaningful choice. The most significant reasons cited for the lack of participation were time constraints (p = 0.029) and lack of money to come to the hospital for the study (p = 0.049). Discussion: Clinical trials can be conducted more quickly and effectively with greater patient participation. Improving awareness will improve patient participation and retention in clinical trials, which will invariably increase access to the newest available treatments.

Indexed as

clinical trialsNigeriaparticipationperceptionsPLHIV

Identifiers

PMID41244815
PMCPMC12615447

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.