ArticleBMJ open2012
What potential research participants want to know about research: a systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Endometrial scratch to increase live birth rates in women undergoing first-time in vitro fertilisation: RCT and systematic review.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Pooled it
- Patient and public perspectives on cell and gene therapies: a systematic review.Nature communications · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Informing potential participants about research: observational study with an embedded randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2013Trial
- The undue burdens of clinical trial participation: implications for equity, diversity, and inclusion.Trials · 2026Article
- Data sharing in cancer research: A qualitative study exploring community members' preferences.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Engaging children, young people, parents and health professionals in interviews: Using an interactive ranking exercise within the co-design of multimedia websites.Journal of child health care : for professionals working with children in the hospital and community · 2024Article
- Co-producing an online patient public community research hub: a qualitative study exploring the perspectives of national institute for health research (NIHR) research champions in England.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Consumer perspectives on simplified, layered consent for a low risk, but complex pragmatic trial.Trials · 2022Article
- What information and the extent of information to be provided in an informed assent/consent form of pediatric drug trials.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- From paper to screen: regulatory and operational considerations for modernizing the informed consent process.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- What do parents think of using informational videos to support recruitment for parenting trials? A qualitative study.Trials · 2021Article
- Article
- An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff.Trials · 2021Article
- Stakeholder involvement in the development of trial material for a clinical trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Contributory factors to the evolution of the concept and practice of informed consent in clinical research: A narrative review.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2020Review
- Informational needs for participation in bioequivalence studies: the perspectives of experienced volunteers.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
- Reducing research waste by promoting informed responses to invitations to participate in clinical trials.Trials · 2019Article
- Appraising Harm in Phase I Trials: Healthy Volunteers' Accounts of Adverse Events.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo establish the empirical evidence base for the information that participants want to know about medical research and to assess how this relates to current guidance from the National Research Ethics Service (NRES). DATA SOURCES: Medline, Web of Science, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological abstracts, Health Management Information Consortium, Cochrane Library, thesis index's, grey literature databases, reference and cited article lists, key journals, Google Scholar and correspondence with expert authors. STUDY SELECTION: Original research studies published between 1950 and October 2010 that asked potential participants to indicate how much or what types of information they wanted to be told about a research study or asked them to rate the importance of a specific piece of information were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS
methodsStudies were appraised based on the generalisability of results to the UK potential research participant population. A metadata analysis using basic thematic analysis was used to split results from papers into themes based on the sections of information that NRES recommends should be included in a participant information sheet.
results14 studies were included. Of the 20 pieces of information that NRES recommend should be included in patient information sheets for research pooled proportions could be calculated for seven themes. Results showed that potential participants wanted to be offered information about result dissemination (91% (95% CI 85% to 95%)), investigator conflicts of interest (48% (95% CI 27% to 69%)), the purpose of the study (76% (95% CI 27% to 100%)), voluntariness (39% (95% CI 2% to 100%)), how long the research would last (61% (95% CI 16% to 97%)), potential benefits (57% (95% CI 7% to 98%)) and confidentiality (44% (95% CI 10% to 82%)). The level of detail participants wanted to know was not explored comprehensively in the studies. There was no empirical evidence to support the level of information provision required by participants on the remaining seven items.
conclusionsThere is limited empirical evidence on what potential participants want to know about research. The existing empirical evidence suggests that individuals may have very different needs and a more tailored evidence-based approach may be necessary.
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.