ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2005
Children, longitudinal studies, and informed consent.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why we have duties of autonomy towards marginal agents.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2023Article
- Reconsidering the Need for Reconsent at 18.Pediatrics · 2018Review
- "Telling" and assent: Parents' attitudes towards children's participation in a birth cohort study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018Article
- Pediatric Issues in Return of Results and Incidental Findings: Weighing Autonomy and Best Interests.Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers · 2017Article
- Personalized assent for pediatric biobanks.BMC medical ethics · 2016Article
- Identifying Ethical Issues in Mental Health Research with Minors Adolescents: Results of a Delphi Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2016Article
- When Children Become Adults: Should Biobanks Re-Contact?PLoS medicine · 2016Review
- Regulating biobanking with children's tissue: a legal analysis and the experts' view.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2016Article
- Behavioral Science Research Informs Bioethical Issues in the Conduct of Large-Scale Studies of Children's Disease Risk.AJOB primary research · 2013Article
- Empirically-derived Knowledge on Adolescent Assent to Pediatric Biomedical Research.AJOB primary research · 2013Article
- Developing a policy for paediatric biobanks: principles for good practice.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2013Article
- Children and biobanks: a review of the ethical and legal discussion.Human genetics · 2011Review
- Children, biobanks and the scope of parental consent.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper deals with ethical issues of particular relevance to longitudinal research involving children. First some general problems concerning information and lack of understanding are discussed. Thereafter focus is shifted to issues concerning information and consent procedures in studies that include young children growing up to become autonomous persons while the project still runs. Some of the questions raised are: When is it right to include children in longitudinal studies? Is an approval from the child needed? How should information to children be handled? A general point stressed is that autonomy considerations underline the importance of adjusting the information given to meet demands. A "presumption of competence" may be needed in research involving children, in order to pay their views sufficient attention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16283493What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.