Trial reportBone marrow transplantation2017
A qualitative exploration of the informed consent process in hematopoietic cell transplantation clinical research and opportunities for improvement.
Trial report in Bone marrow transplantation, 2017. 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.
- Consenting rather than choosing. A qualitative study on overseas patients' decision to undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Motivations and Decision-Making of Adult Sickle Cell Patients in High-Risk Clinical Research.Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2020Article
- Improving the Informed Consent Process in Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: Patient, Caregiver, and Provider Perspectives.Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2018Article
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
Abstract
Informed consent (IC) struggles to meet the ethical principles it strives to embody in the context of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Patients often participate in multiple clinical trials making it difficult to effectively inform the participants and fulfill complex regulations. The recent Notice of Proposed Rule Making would make major changes to federal requirements, providing a timely opportunity to evaluate existing practice. Twenty health care professionals within a Midwest Academic Medical Center involved in obtaining IC in the HCT clinic or involved in patient care during or after the IC process were interviewed to understand: (1) how they approached the IC process; (2) how they described a 'successful' IC process; and (3) opportunities for innovation. Narrative and discourse analyses of interviews indicate that providers understand IC to be a collaborative process requiring engagement and participation of providers, patients and caregivers. 'Markers of success' were identified including cognitive, affective and procedural markers focusing on patient understanding and comfort with the decision to participate. Opportunities for innovating the process included use of decision aids and tablet-based technology, and better use of patient portals. Our findings suggest specific interventions for the IC process that could support the process of consent for providers, patients and caregivers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27748736What 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.