ArticlePerspectives in clinical research2014
"I understood…but some parts were confusing and hard to grasp": Patients' perception of informed consent forms and clinical trials in Eldoret, Kenya.
Article in Perspectives in clinical research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA signed informed consent (IC) form proves voluntary participation in a study. Yet the development of accessible and understandable IC forms comes with its own set of challenges, particularly when conducting international research. PURPOSE: This study explores understanding by participants in an Eldoret-based clinical trial of IC and its implications as well as whether they will volunteer for future trials. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn mid-2010, in-depth interviews with trial participants were recorded in audio format. Content analysis provides a description of trial participants' experiences and thoughts.
resultsAll participants were informed about the trial and its voluntariness and they consented. However, some were too ill to scrutinize trial details. Thus, they relied on their health care provider's advice, or on their guardians. In general, participants understood their role and were happy to volunteer or invite others to participate in future trials. They also emphasised the importance of an open on-going dialogue in order for participants to be able to ask questions.
conclusionClinical trial participants in Eldoret seem to understand their role, but rely on providers and guardians when consenting. They are very willing to participate in future trials. Evaluation of research participants' opinions may improve trial protocols, increase comprehension and guard against manipulation of study participants. In addition, this research focus should guide development of consent forms and process that facilitates a truly IC.
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.