Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26790860›Full record

ArticleLife sciences, society and policy2016

Parental perspectives on consent for participation in large-scale, non-biological data repositories.

Kiran Pohar Manhas, Stacey Page, Shawn X Dodd, Nicole Letourneau, Aleta Ambrose, Xinjie Cui, Suzanne C Tough

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Life sciences, society and policy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Kiran Pohar ManhasChild Development Centre, c/o 2888 Shaganappi Trail NW, Calgary, AB, T3B 6A8, Canada. kpmanhas@ucalgary.ca.
Stacey PageMacKimmie Library Tower, 2500 University Drive Northwest, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada. sapage@ucalgary.ca.
Shawn X DoddChild Development Centre, c/o 2888 Shaganappi Trail NW, Calgary, AB, T3B 6A8, Canada. sxdodd@ucalgary.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4516-1305
Nicole LetourneauChild Development Centre, c/o 2888 Shaganappi Trail NW, Calgary, AB, T3B 6A8, Canada. nicole.letourneau@ucalgary.ca.
Aleta AmbroseCommunity Member, Calgary, Canada. aleta.ambrose@albertahealthservices.ca.
Xinjie CuiChild and Youth Data Lab, Alberta Center for Child Family and Community Research, 9925 109 St NW, Edmonton, AB, T5J 3M9, Canada. xcui@research4children.com.
Suzanne C ToughChild Development Centre, c/o 2888 Shaganappi Trail NW, Calgary, AB, T3B 6A8, Canada. stough@ucalgary.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData sharing presents several challenges to the informed consent process. Unique challenges emerge when sharing pediatric or pregnancy-related data. Here, parent preferences for sharing non-biological data are examined.

methodsGroups (n = 4 groups, 18 participants) and individual interviews (n = 19 participants) were conducted with participants from two provincial, longitudinal pregnancy cohorts (AOB and APrON). Qualitative content analysis was applied to transcripts of semi-structured interviews.

resultsParticipants were supportive of a broad, one-time consent model or a tiered consent model. These preferences were grounded in the perceived obligations for reciprocity and accuracy. Parents want reciprocity among participants, repositories and researchers regarding respect and trust. Furthermore, parents' worry about the interrelationships between the validity of the consent processes and secondary data use.

conclusionsThough parent participants agree that their research data should be made available for secondary use, they believe their consent is still required. Given their understanding that obtaining and informed consent can be challenging in the case of secondary use, parents agreed that a broad, one-time consent model was acceptable, reducing the logistical burden while maintaining respect for their contribution. This broad model also maintained participant trust in the research and secondary use of their data. The broad, one-time model also reflected parents' perspectives surrounding child involvement in the consent process. The majority of parents felt decision made during childhood were the parents responsibility and should remain in parental purview until the child reaches the age of majority.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationComprehensionFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInterviews as TopicLongitudinal StudiesMaleParental ConsentParentsQualitative ResearchResearch DesignConsentData sharingNon-biological dataParentsPediatric

Identifiers

PMID26790860
PMCPMC4720627

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.