Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23899250›Full record

Observational studyBMC medical ethics2013

An effective multisource informed consent procedure for research and clinical practice: an observational study of patient understanding and awareness of their roles as research stakeholders in a cancer biobank.

Silvia Cervo, Jane Rovina, Renato Talamini, Tiziana Perin, Vincenzo Canzonieri, Paolo De Paoli, Agostino Steffan

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC medical ethics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Patients and caregivers' unmet information needs in the field of patient education: results from an Italian multicenter exploratory survey.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Patient-Centered Cancer Care Programs in Italy: Benchmarking Global Patient Education Initiatives.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2016
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

7 authors.

Silvia CervoCRO-Biobank, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico, IRCCS, Aviano, Italy. scervo@cro.it
Jane Rovina
Renato Talamini
Tiziana Perin
Vincenzo Canzonieri
Paolo De Paoli
Agostino Steffan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEfforts to improve patients' understanding of their own medical treatments or research in which they are involved are progressing, especially with regard to informed consent procedures. We aimed to design a multisource informed consent procedure that is easily adaptable to both clinical and research applications, and to evaluate its effectiveness in terms of understanding and awareness, even in less educated patients.

methodsWe designed a multisource informed consent procedure for patients' enrolment in a Cancer Institute Biobank (CRO-Biobank). From October 2009 to July 2011, a total of 550 cancer patients admitted to the Centro di Riferimento Oncologico IRCCS Aviano, who agreed to contribute to its biobank, were consecutively enrolled. Participants were asked to answer a self-administered questionnaire aim at exploring their understanding of biobanks and their needs for information on this topic, before and after study participation. Chi-square tests were performed on the questionnaire answers, according to gender or education.

resultsOf the 430 patients who returned the questionnaire, only 36.5% knew what a biobank was before participating in the study. Patients with less formal education were less informed by some sources (the Internet, newspapers, magazines, and our Institute). The final assessment test, taken after the multisource informed consent procedure, showed more than 95% correct answers. The information received was judged to be very or fairly understandable in almost all cases. More than 95% of patients were aware of participating in a biobank project, and gave helping cancer research (67.5%), moral obligation, and supporting cancer care as main reasons for their involvement.

conclusionsOur multisource informed consent information system allowed a high rate of understanding and awareness of study participation, even among less-educated participants, and could be an effective and easy-to-apply model for others to consider to contribute to a well-informed decision making process in several fields, from clinical practice to research.Further studies are needed to explore the effects on the study comprehension by each source of information, and by other sources suggested by participants in the questionnaire.

Indexed as

ComprehensionInformed ConsentNeoplasmsResearch SubjectsTissue BanksAdultAgedAwarenessBiological Specimen BanksBiomedical ResearchFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultimediaPatients

Identifiers

PMID23899250
PMCPMC3734192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.