ArticleAccountability in research2014
Perceptions of academic health science research center personnel regarding informed consent processes and therapeutic misconception.
Article in Accountability in research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- First Do No Harm: Ethical Concerns of Health Researchers That Discourage the Sharing of Results With Research Participants.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionInstrumentation exists to measure voluntariness and misunderstanding in informed consent processes. However, research personnel's perspectives about using instrumentation to measure therapeutic misconceptions in research participants has not been reported. We designed a workshop to promote research personnel knowledge of emerging instrumentation and to study the perceptions of research personnel regarding such instruments. METHODS AND
findingsTwo nationally recognized experts who have developed psychometric instruments to measure aspects of informed consent presented their recent findings to research personnel of the Medical University of South Carolina at a one-day workshop. Following the presentations, workshop attendees divided into two focus groups and shared their perceptions regarding the presentation content. Inductive thematic analysis detected themes related to informed consent processes including: investigator/provider role clarity; investigator transparency; therapeutic misconception; and screening subjects for understanding.
conclusionOur findings suggest future directions in applied, proactive empirical research to better understand investigator perceptions and practices related to transparency in research, and to develop instrumentation to detect risks to the integrity of informed consent in order to promote voluntariness and autonomy and minimize therapeutic misconception in research practices.
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.