ArticleClinical and translational science2015
Improving the Proficiency of Research Consent Administrators.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2015. 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.
- Assessing usefulness and researcher satisfaction with consent form templates.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the development and testing of a module to improve consent administrators' skills when obtaining research consent from culturally and linguistically diverse and low literacy populations.
designDevelopment and psychometric testing of video module including community vignettes.
methodsFollowing initial content, face, and construct validity testing by experts, a field trial was conducted with pre- and postknowledge tests and satisfaction surveys completed by 112 consent administrators.
resultsMean score out of a possible 10 on pretest was 8.6 (±standard deviation [SD], 1.55) and on posttest was 9.1 (±SD, 1.2; paired t-test 95% confidence interval of difference: -0.18 to -0.88; two-tailed p = 0.003). The average years of experience with obtaining consent was 6.42 years (range: 0-35), but years of experience was not significantly associated with either pre- or posttest scores (p = 0.82 and 0.44, respectively). Most user evaluations were positive, although suggestions for improvements were made.
conclusionAlthough pretest scores were relatively high, training needs of research consent administrators for consenting diverse and low literacy populations may be unmet. We urge that institutional review boards, researchers, policymakers, educators, and bioethicists address the training needs of research consent administrators and we offer this training module as one potential resource and adjunct to such training.
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.