ArticleJournal of pediatric nursing
Assent Described: Exploring Perspectives From the Inside.
Article in Journal of pediatric nursing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why children's research assent matters: Exploring three dimensions of autonomy.Nursing ethics · 2026Article
- Child and Adolescent Cancer Communication Preferences for Treatment Decision Making: A Meta-Synthesis.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2025Review
- What information and the extent of information to be provided in an informed assent/consent form of pediatric drug trials.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to describe the informed consent and assent experience for oncology research from the perspective of the participants: adolescents, their parents, and their physician providers. DESIGN &
methodsThis descriptive mixed-methods study included the pilot use of the Quality of Informed Consent Questionnaire (QuIC) with an adolescent population and semi-structured interviews with adolescents, their parents, and their physician providers within 48-72 hours of the informed consent and assent discussion for a pediatric oncology clinical trial and again 6-9 weeks later.
resultsAdolescents and their parents scored considerably lower on part A of the QuIC than part B indicating a lower level of objective understanding of key elements of informed consent and assent. Qualitative interviews highlight participants' self-reported poor memory or recollection of key details of the informed consent and assent discussion paralleling the QuIC findings for objective understanding.
conclusionFindings from this pilot descriptive study suggest that adolescents and their parents feel more informed than they actually are. This dichotomy of experience seems to have been mitigated by a strong sense of trust in and connection with their physician provider. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Further exploration of adolescent and parent viewpoints regarding what they value as important in the content of the informed consent and assent and how that content is delivered is warranted. Additionally, understanding the origin of participants' misunderstanding of the key elements of consent and assent may illuminate areas for future intervention-based research focused on improving the overall quality of informed consent and assent discussions.
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.