ArticleAIDS and behavior2012
Improving participant understanding of informed consent in an HIV-prevention clinical trial: a comparison of methods.
Article in AIDS and behavior, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Measuring and evaluating participant understanding of consent processes in clinical trials: a systematic review.Trials · 2026Pooled it
- Improved participants' understanding in a healthy volunteer study using the SIDCER informed consent form: a randomized-controlled study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Trial
- Improving understanding of clinical trial procedures among low literacy populations: an intervention within a microbicide trial in Malawi.BMC medical ethics · 2012Trial
- Understanding of Critical Elements of Informed Consent in Genomic Research: A Case of a Paediatric HIV-TB Research Project in Uganda.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2022Article
- Experiences and practices of key research team members in obtaining informed consent for pharmacogenetic research among people living with HIV: a qualitative study.Research ethics · 2022Article
- Ethical considerations for HIV remission clinical research involving participants diagnosed during acute HIV infection.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Considerations for an integrated population health databank in Africa: lessons from global best practices.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- How Biomedical HIV Prevention Trials Incorporate Behavioral and Social Sciences Research: A Typology of Approaches.AIDS and behavior · 2019Article
- Evaluation of the Informed Consent Process of a Multicenter Tuberculosis Treatment Trial.AJOB empirical bioethics · 2015Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Empirical research on informed consent has shown that study participants often do not fully understand consent information. This study assessed participant understanding of three mock consent approaches describing an HIV-prevention clinical trial in Lilongwe, Malawi prior to trial implementation. Pregnant women (n = 297) were systematically selected from antenatal-care waiting lines and sequentially allocated to receive an enhanced standard consent form (group 1), a context-specific consent form (group 2), or context-specific counseling cards (group 3). Understanding of research concepts and study procedures was assessed immediately postintervention and at 1-week follow-up. At postintervention, participants in groups 2 and 3 understood more about research concepts and study procedures compared with group 1. Group 3 participants also understood more about study procedures compared with group 2. At follow-up, participants in groups 2 and 3 continued to understand more about research concepts and study procedures. Context-specific approaches improved understanding of consent information in this study.
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.