ReviewJournal of medical ethics2006
Assent in paediatric research: theoretical and practical considerations.
Review in Journal of medical ethics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 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
46 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using a cartoon questionnaire to improve consent process in children: a randomized controlled survey.Pediatric research · 2021Trial
- Inhaled nitric oxide for the adjunctive therapy of severe malaria: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Trials · 2011Trial
- Children's participation in assent to paediatric oncology research: experiences of children, siblings and parents.Trials · 2026Article
- Why children's research assent matters: Exploring three dimensions of autonomy.Nursing ethics · 2026Article
- Does Honouring Assent Really Respect the Preferences and Values of Research Participants with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities?Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Advancing child health through applied qualitative research.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Honoring childhood agency in developmental research: Best practices, applications, and insights.Methods in Psychology (Online) · 2025Article
- SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Effects of an intergenerational service-learning program on prosocial behaviors and perception of physical education in primary education students.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Mature Minor Doctrine Clarification Act: A Setback in Pediatric Immunizations.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Decisional Capacity for Informed Consent of Transition age Children to Adolescents in Human Subject Research.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2024Article
- Ethical and practical considerations related to data sharing when collecting patient-reported outcomes in care-based child health research.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Non-static framework for understanding adaptive designs: an ethical justification in paediatric trials.Journal of medical ethics · 2022Article
- Approaches for Discussing Clinical Trials with Pediatric Oncology Patients and Their Families.Current oncology reports · 2022Review
- The Depiction of Autonomy and Shared Decision-Making by Children and Adolescents in Medical Television.Cureus · 2022Article
- Issues of consent and assent in pediatric neurosurgery.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2021Review
- Helping Them Decide: A Scoping Review of Interventions Used to Help Minors Understand the Concept and Process of Assent.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Article
- Developing an Islamic Research Ethics Framework.Journal of religion and health · 2019Article
- A Tale of Two Capacities: Including Children and Decisionally Vulnerable Adults in Biomedical Research.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Article
- Establishing a Multi-Country Sickle Cell Disease Registry in Africa: Ethical Considerations.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Article
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
Guidelines around the world require children to provide assent for their participation in most research studies. Yet, little further guidance is provided on how review committees should implement this requirement, including which children are capable of providing assent and when the requirement for assent may be waived on the grounds that the research offers participating children the potential for important clinical benefit. The present paper argues that the assent requirement is supported by the importance of allowing children who are capable to make their own decisions. This suggests children are capable of assent when they become able to understand the research in question. While development varies across individual children, existing data suggest most children develop this ability by approximately age 14. Until instruments are developed to assess the assent capacity of individual children, this age should be used as the threshold for assent. In addition, the importance of protecting children from harm suggests that the sustained dissent of all children, including those who are unable to provide assent, should be respected. While the assent requirement may be waived when research participation offers the potential for important medical benefit that is unavailable outside the research context, analysis suggests that children's sustained dissent should be respected in all cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.