Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25157899›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Comparison of closed-ended, open-ended, and perceived informed consent comprehension measures for a mock HIV prevention trial among women in Tanzania.

Kathleen M MacQueen, Mario Chen, Catalina Ramirez, Soori E A Nnko, Kelly M Earp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

5 authors.

Kathleen M MacQueenGlobal Health, Population and Nutrition, FHI 360, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Mario ChenGlobal Health, Population and Nutrition, FHI 360, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Catalina RamirezGlobal Health, Population and Nutrition, FHI 360, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Soori E A NnkoSexual and Reproductive Health, National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), Mwanza, Tanzania.
Kelly M EarpGlobal Health, Population and Nutrition, FHI 360, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Verifying participant comprehension continues to be a difficult ethical and regulatory challenge for clinical research. An increasing number of articles assessing methods to improve comprehension have been published, but they use a wide range of outcome measures including open-ended, closed-ended, and self-perceived measures of comprehension. Systematic comparisons of different measures have rarely been reported. This study evaluated the likely direction of bias observed when using open-ended, closed-ended, and perceived ease of comprehension measures among women administered a mock informed consent process in Mwanza, Tanzania. Participants were randomized to either a closed-ended or an open-ended assessment of comprehension, administered the consent process for a hypothetical HIV prevention trial in Kiswahili, and then administered a comprehension assessment, per their randomization. They were then asked how easy or hard it was to understand each of the informed consent components measured in the comprehension assessment. Women in the closed-ended arm had significantly higher overall comprehension scores than in the open-ended arm. Perceived scores were significantly higher when compared to both open-ended and close-ended scores within arms but were similar between arms. Findings highlight the importance of comprehension assessments in complex clinical trials that go beyond asking participants if they understand or have any questions. They also indicate the need for continued exploration of objective measures of comprehension in international clinical research settings, so that points in need of clarification can be efficiently and effectively identified and addressed. Such measures would reduce burdens on both staff and participants that result from well-intentioned but potentially unnecessary time spent explaining in unwarranted detail things already understood.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentAdultComprehensionFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansInformed ConsentRandom AllocationTanzaniaYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25157899
PMCPMC4144899

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.