ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Perceptions and attitudes toward clinical trial participation: a study on
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Commentary: Perceptions and attitudes toward clinical trial participation: a study onFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.