ArticleGlobal journal of health science2014
The perceived information in obtained from the informed consent in Iranian patients with cancer in clinical studies.
Article in Global journal of health science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveOne of the basic issues in clinical studies is to receive the informed consent; that is to say, all the activities applied in patient's involvement in the information, decision-making, ability and volunteering in diagnosis, cure and care. In as much as most cancer patients require information about their individual needs, the present study is conducted to determine the perceived information from the informed consent of clinical studies in cancer patients.
methodsThis is a descriptive study. Fifty cancer patients hospitalized for participating in the clinical study was chosen according to the convenience sampling. Tools used in this research included the questionnaire (individual and social features) and the check list about patient's right and cancer patient's information before and after receiving informed consent in clinical studies (10 items on a Likert rating scale). To validate the study, content and formal validation was used. Data in this research were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequency, mean and standard deviation) and the software of SPSS 16.
resultIn general, the mean of the scores obtained from cancer patients' perceived information before completing the informed consent of the clinical studies was 14 ± 3.5 and after consent of the clinical studies was 16 ± 2.4. The cancer patients' perceived information before and after consent of the clinical studies was weak.
conclusionsBased on the findings of the present study, the rate of the information the cancer patients received, before completing the informed consent form, was low, but after completing the informed consent form this rate was again low. Therefore, conducting similar and wider studies is recommended to unveil the factors affecting perceiving information and how to promote the quality of the informed consent in other hospitals in Iran.
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.