Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27872904›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2016

Exploring informed consent in HIV clinical trials: A case study in Uganda.

Agnes Ssali, Fiona Poland, Janet Seeley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Women's Views About a Paternal Consent Requirement for Biomedical Research in Pregnancy.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2018
    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

3 authors.

Agnes SsaliMedical Research Council/UVRI Uganda Research Unit on AIDS, P.O Box 49, Entebbe, Uganda.
Fiona PolandUniversity of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
Janet SeeleyMedical Research Council/UVRI Uganda Research Unit on AIDS, P.O Box 49, Entebbe, Uganda; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn settings with low literacy levels ensuring that participants are fully-informed before they consent to participate in clinical trials is a challenge. We explored the experiences and concerns of key actors in the informed consent process in two HIV clinical trials.

methodSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 46 respondents including trial participants, research study team and research ethics committee members about their experiences during the informed consent process. Three focus group discussions were conducted with 14 Community Advisory Board (CAB) members and 17 trial participants. Data were analysed to identify key themes.

findingsThe consent process was highlighted as an important procedure by all the key actors however each group had a particular area of emphasis. Signing a consent form was given importance by research team and ethics committee members, because it provided documented evidence of a participant's willingness to join a clinical trial. Participants did not welcome the presence of a witness for a non-literate participant because understanding study information was not closely related to an ability to read and write.

conclusionThis study's findings indicated that obtaining a volunteer's signature or thumbprint on a consent form did not necessarily mean that the participant was fully-informed about the information relevant to their taking part nor that they understood all the information shared with them. Informed consent requires sufficient time in the research process to have staff trained well enough before research begins. Ensuring and gaining informed consent should be understood and treated as a relation-centred, dynamic supportive process throughout the duration of a research study.

Indexed as

Health sciencesMedicineSocial sciences

Identifiers

PMID27872904
PMCPMC5110465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.