Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22046230›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2011

Repeated assessments of informed consent comprehension among HIV-infected participants of a three-year clinical trial in Botswana.

Lelia H Chaisson, Nancy E Kass, Bafanana Chengeta, Unami Mathebula, Taraz Samandari

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00164281 (A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Limited vs. Continuous Isoniazid Tuberculosis Preventive Therapy in HIV-infected Persons in Botswana), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT00164281 phase4completednot on this map

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Limited vs. Continuous Isoniazid Tuberculosis Preventive Therapy in HIV-infected Persons in Botswana

TypeinterventionalSponsorCenters for Disease Control and PreventionRan2004 to 2011Enrolled1,995ConditionsTuberculosis, HIV InfectionsArmsIsoniazid
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Co-creation of information materials within the assent process: From theory to practice.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Lelia H ChaissonBerman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Nancy E Kass
Bafanana Chengeta
Unami Mathebula
Taraz Samandari
Botswana Harvard AIDS Institute Partnership · BWJohns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformed consent (IC) has been an international standard for decades for the ethical conduct of clinical trials. Yet frequently study participants have incomplete understanding of key issues, a problem exacerbated by language barriers or lack of familiarity with research concepts. Few investigators measure participant comprehension of IC, while even fewer conduct interim assessments once a trial is underway. METHODS AND

findingsWe assessed comprehension of IC using a 20-question true/false quiz administered in 6-month intervals in the context of a placebo-controlled, randomized trial for the prevention of tuberculosis among HIV-infected adults in Botswana (2004-2009). Quizzes were offered in both Setswana and English. To enroll in the TB trial, participants were required to have ≥ 16/20 correct responses. We examined concepts understood and the degree to which understanding changed over three-years. We analyzed 5,555 quizzes from 1,835 participants. The participants' highest education levels were: 28% primary, 59% secondary, 9% tertiary and 7% no formal education. Eighty percent of participants passed the enrollment quiz (Quiz1) on their first attempt and the remainder passed on their second attempt. Those having higher than primary education and those who took the quiz in English were more likely to receive a passing score on their first attempt (adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals, 3.1 (2.4-4.0) and 1.5 (1.2, 1.9), respectively). The trial's purpose or procedures were understood by 90-100% of participants, while 44-77% understood randomization, placebos, or risks. Participants who failed Quiz1 on their initial attempt were more likely to fail quizzes later in the trial. Pass rates improved with quiz re-administration in subsequent years.

conclusionsAdministration of a comprehension quiz at enrollment and during follow-up was feasible in a large, international collaboration and efficiently determined IC comprehension by trial participants. Strategies to improve understanding of concepts like placebos and randomization are needed. Comprehension assessments throughout a study may reinforce key concepts.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsAdultAgedBotswanaComprehensionEducational StatusFemaleHumansInformed ConsentInternational CooperationMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPatient SelectionSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID22046230
PMCPMC3203064
OpenAlexW2073962137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

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.