ArticleContemporary clinical trials2014
Characteristics associated with informed consent for genetic studies in the ACCORD trial.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2014. 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.
- Genetic counseling and testing for Asian Americans: a systematic review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Pooled it
- Genetic exceptionalism and genomic contextualism among Asian Americans: a qualitative study.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Consent for Genetic Biobanking in a Diverse Multisite CKD Cohort.Kidney international reports · 2018Article
- Consent for participating in clinical trials - Is it really informed?Developing world bioethics · 2018Article
- Incorporating Concomitant Medications into Genome-Wide Analyses for the Study of Complex Disease and Drug Response.Frontiers in genetics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrior studies found that some groups have lower genetic consent rates than others. Participant consent for genetic studies enables randomized trials to examine effects of interventions compared to control in participants with different genotypes.
methodsUnadjusted and multivariate associations between genetic consent rates and participant, study, and consent characteristics in 9573 participants approached for genetics consent in the multicenter Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, which used a layered genetics consent.
resultsEighty-nine percent of eligible participants consented to genetic studies ("Any Consent") and 64.7% consented to studies of any genes by any investigator ("Full Consent"), with similar rates in randomized groups. Controlling for multiple characteristics, African-Americans had lower consent rates than others (Any Consent Odds Ratio, OR = 0.62, p = 0.0004; Full Consent OR = 0.67, p < 0.0001). Those with high school or higher education level had higher rates than less than high school graduates (Full Consent ORs 1.41-1.69, p-values < 0.0001). Consent rates were lower when genetics consent was separate from the main trial consent on the same day (Any Consent OR 0.30; Full Consent OR 0.52, p values < 0.0001) or on a subsequent day (Any Consent OR 0.70, p = 0.0022; Full Consent OR 0.76, p = 0.0002).
conclusionHigh rates of consent for genetic studies can be obtained in complex randomized trials, with lower consent rates in African-Americans, in participants with less than high-school education, and for sharing samples with other investigators. A genetics consent separated from the main trial consent was associated with lower consent rates.
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.