Automated Author ProfileE.D., Vidoni
E.D., Vidoni
Current S-Index
Sum of Dataset Indices for all datasets
Average Dataset Index per Dataset
Average Dataset Index per dataset
Total Datasets
Total datasets for this author
Average FAIR Score
Average FAIR Score per dataset
Total Citations
Total citations to the author's datasets
Total Mentions
Total mentions of the author's datasets
S-Index Interpretation
The S-Index (Sharing Index) is a comprehensive metric that represents the cumulative impact of all your datasets. It is calculated as the sum of Dataset Index scores across all your claimed datasets.
What it means:
- A higher S-index indicates greater overall impact of your datasets relative to typical datasets in their fields of research
- The S-Index grows as you add more datasets or as existing datasets gain more citations and mentions
- It provides a single number to track your research data impact over time
Current S-Index: 1.8 (sum of 2 datasets Dataset Index scores)
More information here.
S-Index Over Time
Cumulative Citations Over Time
Cumulative Mentions Over Time
Datasets
Introduction: Given the elevated dementia risk in underrepresented demographic groups in the US—particularly in Latino and Non-Latino Black individuals compared to Non-Latino White individuals—it is vital that these groups are well-represented in dementia prevention research. Eligibility criteria and recruitment strategies may play a key role in promoting participant diversity. The aim of this review was to examine eligibility criteria and recruitment strategies in US dementia prevention trials in light of participant diversity.Methods: A systematic review was conducted using Medline (including PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL. We explored the percent White participants for trials using vs. not using a specific eligibility criterion or recruitment strategy using Hodges-Lehmann median difference estimation.Results: Of forty-four studies meeting the inclusion criteria, twenty-seven reported on racial/ethnic diversity. Analyses demonstrated that criteria regarding cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, hearing impairment, and sedentary lifestyle were associated with relatively high participant diversity, while gastro-intestinal/liver disease, motivation to participate, and language proficiency criteria were associated with relatively little diversity. Information on recruitment strategies was often lacking. Three studies described recruitment efforts explicitly aimed at increasing diversity. Recruitment strategies associated with relatively high racial/ethnic diversity included recruitment via referral/word-of-mouth, television/radio advertising, and recruitment at church.Conclusion: Eligibility criteria could be improved by revisiting and revising how they are defined (e.g. motivation to participate). Regarding recruitment, several recommendations are provided, including 1) lifting barriers to study participation (e.g. through reimbursement), 2) collaborating with community partners, and 3) formally studying the effectiveness of recruitment strategies.
Authors
- N., Lazaar ;
- S.E., VanBeek ;
- A.F., Rirash ;
- J.M., Papma ;
- J., Perales-Puchalt ;
- A.R., Shaw ;
- E.D., Vidoni ;
- S., Franzen
Introduction: Given the elevated dementia risk in underrepresented demographic groups in the US—particularly in Latino and Non-Latino Black individuals compared to Non-Latino White individuals—it is vital that these groups are well-represented in dementia prevention research. Eligibility criteria and recruitment strategies may play a key role in promoting participant diversity. The aim of this review was to examine eligibility criteria and recruitment strategies in US dementia prevention trials in light of participant diversity.Methods: A systematic review was conducted using Medline (including PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL. We explored the percent White participants for trials using vs. not using a specific eligibility criterion or recruitment strategy using Hodges-Lehmann median difference estimation.Results: Of forty-four studies meeting the inclusion criteria, twenty-seven reported on racial/ethnic diversity. Analyses demonstrated that criteria regarding cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, hearing impairment, and sedentary lifestyle were associated with relatively high participant diversity, while gastro-intestinal/liver disease, motivation to participate, and language proficiency criteria were associated with relatively little diversity. Information on recruitment strategies was often lacking. Three studies described recruitment efforts explicitly aimed at increasing diversity. Recruitment strategies associated with relatively high racial/ethnic diversity included recruitment via referral/word-of-mouth, television/radio advertising, and recruitment at church.Conclusion: Eligibility criteria could be improved by revisiting and revising how they are defined (e.g. motivation to participate). Regarding recruitment, several recommendations are provided, including 1) lifting barriers to study participation (e.g. through reimbursement), 2) collaborating with community partners, and 3) formally studying the effectiveness of recruitment strategies.
Authors
- N., Lazaar ;
- S.E., VanBeek ;
- A.F., Rirash ;
- J.M., Papma ;
- J., Perales-Puchalt ;
- A.R., Shaw ;
- E.D., Vidoni ;
- S., Franzen