ArticleJournal of medical ethics2006
Improving the quality of consent to randomised controlled trials by using continuous consent and clinician training in the consent process.
Article 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 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Deferred consent in emergency obstetric research: findings from qualitative interviews with women and recruiters in theBMJ open · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Treatment of Rivaroxaban versus Aspirin for Non-disabling Cerebrovascular Events (TRACE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.BMC neurology · 2015Trial
- Initial 3-weeks' Apixaban Versus Dual-antiplatelet Therapy (Clopidogrel and Aspirin) followed by Clopidogrel alone in high-risk patients with Acute Non-Disabling Cerebrovascular Events (ADANCE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Clinical drug investigation · 2014Trial
- Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 and sodium chloride injection as adjunctive therapy in patients with cerebral hypoperfusion.BMC neurology · 2012Trial
- Trial
- How informed is consent in vulnerable populations? Experience using a continuous consent process during the MDP301 vaginal microbicide trial in Mwanza, Tanzania.BMC medical ethics · 2010Trial
- What a signature adds to the consent process.Surgical endoscopy · 2008Trial
- Development and Preliminary Evaluation of a Questionnaire on Parental Informed Consent in Neonatal Research.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Women's and midwives' views on the optimum process for informed consent for research in a feasibility study involving an intrapartum intervention: a qualitative study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Article
- Facilitators and barriers for parental consent to pediatric emergency research.Pediatric research · 2022Article
- Protocol for the Birth Asphyxia in African Newborns (Baby BRAiN) Study: a Neonatal Encephalopathy Feasibility Cohort Study.Gates open research · 2022Article
- Clinical Research in Neonates: Redesigning the Informed Consent Process in the Digital Era.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Article
- Attitudes of Mothers Regarding Willingness to Enroll Their Children in Research.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2020Article
- Article
- Improving Informed Consent for Novel Vaccine Research in a Pediatric Hospital Setting Using a Blended Research-Design Approach.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Article
- Informed consent for neonatal trials: practical points to consider and a check list.BMJ paediatrics open · 2020Review
- Recommendations for the design of therapeutic trials for neonatal seizures.Pediatric research · 2019Article
- Treatment preference and recruitment to pediatric RCTs: A systematic review.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess whether continuous consent, a process in which information is given to research participants at different stages in a trial, and clinician training in that process were effective when used by clinicians while gaining consent to the Total Body Hypothermia (TOBY) trial. The TOBY trial is a randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigating the use of whole-body cooling for neonates with evidence of perinatal asphyxia. Obtaining valid informed consent for the TOBY trial is difficult, but is a good test of the effectiveness of continuous consent.
methodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with 30 sets of parents who consented to the TOBY trial and with 10 clinicians who sought it by the continuous consent process. Analysis was focused on the validity of parental consent based on the consent components of competence, information, understanding and voluntariness.
resultsNo marked problems with consent validity at the point of signature were observed in 19 of 27 (70%) couples. Problems were found mainly to lie with the competence and understanding of the parents: mothers, particularly, had problems with competence in the early stages of consent. Problems in understanding were primarily to do with side effects. Problems in both competence and understanding were observed to reduce markedly, particularly for mothers, in the post-signature phase, when further discussion took place. Randomisation was generally understood but unpopular. Information was not always given by clinicians in stages during the short period available before parents gave consent. Most clinicians, however, were able to give follow-up information. DISCUSSION: Consent validity was found to compare favourably with similar trials examined in the Euricon study.
conclusionAdopting the elements of the continuous consent process and clinician training in RCTs should be considered by researchers, particularly when they have concerns about the quality of consent they are likely to obtain by using a conventional process.
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.