Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24795832›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical research & bioethics2014

Multi-Media Educational Tool Increases Knowledge of Clinical Trials in Uganda.

Barbara Castelnuovo, Kevin Newell, Yukari C Manabe, Gavin Robertson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical research & bioethics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Moving Forward on Consent Practices in Australia.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

4 authors.

Barbara CastelnuovoInfectious Diseases Institute, Makerere College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.
Kevin NewellClinical Research Directorate/Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc. (formerly SAIC-Frederick Inc.), Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, MD 21702.
Yukari C ManabeInfectious Diseases Institute, Makerere College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda ; Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Gavin RobertsonInfectious Diseases Institute, Makerere College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.

Funding

CCR NIH HHS HHSN261200800001CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800001E
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformed consent is premised on the participants' understanding the scope of the research and the associated risks and benefits. The objective was to evaluate the improvement in knowledge in a population unfamiliar with clinical trial concepts about "what it means to be part of a clinical trial" using an innovative educational tool called the 'Speaking Book'.

methodsThis was a randomized controlled trial conducted at a research site in Uganda. 201 participants were randomized to: 1) clinical trials information session control arm, or 2) clinical trials information session followed by instruction in the use of the Speaking Book with a take-home copy (intervention arm). After the session, participants of both groups completed a 22-item multiple-choice test on the rights and responsibilities of participants. Participants returned after one week to complete the same test to assess knowledge retention. The mean pre- and post-test score difference was assessed according to trial arm using an unpaired t-test of proportions.

resultsNinety-one (90%) participants completed both the initial and follow-up tests in the control arm and 100 (100%) in the intervention arm. The average age of participants was 38 years, 53% were female and 67% were employed; 20% had previously been invited to participate in a clinical trial; of these, 19% had participated. The mean difference in proportion of correct responses from test 1 to test 2 was 2.7% (95%CI 0.3%-5.0%) for the control arm and 11.6% (95%CI 9.3%-13.7%) for the intervention arm (t-score= -5.3, p-value<0.0001).

conclusionParticipants who had instruction in the use of the Speaking Book had a larger increase in knowledge than those who had no access to this tool. To better engage patients unfamiliar with clinical trial concepts, innovative educational techniques can assist to increase knowledge to make an informed decision about participation in a clinical trial.

Indexed as

clinical trialsinformed consentspeaking book

Identifiers

PMID24795832
PMCPMC4004932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.