ArticleJournal of palliative medicine2012
Research participation experiences of parents of children with cancer who were asked about their child's prognosis.
Article in Journal of palliative medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The under reporting of recruitment strategies in research with children with life-threatening illnesses: A systematic review.Palliative medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Research barriers in children and young people with life-limiting conditions: a survey.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the burdens and benefits of participation in research by parents of children with life-limiting illnesses.Nurse researcher · 2019Article
- What's missing in missing data? Omissions in survey responses among parents of children with advanced cancer.Journal of palliative medicine · 2014Article
- Participation in Online Research Examining End-of-Life Experiences: Is It Beneficial, Burdensome, or Both for Parents Bereaved by Childhood Cancer?Journal of pediatric oncology nursing : official journal of the Association of Pediatric Oncology NursesArticle
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
Abstract
backgroundIn questionnaire-based research, human subject protection committees must assess the emotional impact of the study on participants. Without clear data about the risks and benefits of participating in such studies, however, review board members must use personal judgment to assess emotional harm.
objectiveTo examine experiences of distress and value of participation in a study of prognosis communication among parents of children with cancer, and to identify factors associated with predominantly distressing research experiences.
methodsWe surveyed 194 parents of children with cancer (overall response rate, 70%), treated at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Children's Hospital, Boston, Mass, in the first year after the child's cancer diagnosis. The survey focused on the child's prognosis and parent-physician communication; at the end, we asked parents how distressing and how useful completing the survey had been to them personally.
resultsOnly 1% of parents found research participation to be "very" distressing. The majority of parents were "not at all" distressed by participating (62%), and most reported that the questionnaire was at least "a little" useful to them personally (69%). Overall, 18% of parents gave higher ratings for distress than for utility. Parents were more likely to experience research participation as predominantly distressing when they found prognostic information to be upsetting (odds ratio [OR] 5.38, p=0.005).
conclusionMost participating parents were able to respond to questions about their child's prognosis with little or no distress. Even when distress was present, it was often accompanied by a perception that participating was of value.
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.