ArticleBiology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation2018
Improving the Informed Consent Process in Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: Patient, Caregiver, and Provider Perspectives.
Article in Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Communication barriers in aftercare: a qualitative study of allogeneic stem cell transplant patients.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Awareness and perspectives on patients' rights: a survey of health profession students at a Ugandan University.African health sciences · 2025Article
- 'I had no choice!' Challenges in the informed consent and decision-making process for allogeneic stem cell transplantation: a qualitative method triangulation.Stem cell research & therapy · 2025Article
- Integrating stakeholder feedback in translational genomics research: an ethnographic analysis of a study protocol's evolution.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020Article
- Implementation of Common Rule Changes to the Informed Consent Form: A Research Staff and Institutional Review Board Collaboration.Ochsner journal · 2020Review
- Investigating and Supporting Patient and Caregiver Sensemaking in Complex Medical Decisions Using Participatory Design.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
One of the significant modifications to the Common Rule is the requirement that prospective participants be given information sufficient for a "reasonable person." However, research is limited on what types of information patients, caregivers, and providers consider "key information." Although certain aspects of informed consent (IC) may be considered standard, considering the individualized needs and preferences of patients is necessary for patient-centered consent. In this study, we qualitatively examined the specific types of information that patients and caregivers involved in hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), as well as their providers, believe to be important and necessary as part of the IC process to make a decision about participating in clinical research; and further, how these perspectives are aligned. Our findings suggest opportunities for improving the IC document and process by emphasizing information of importance to patients, such as the benefits to others and contributions to science that are associated with participation in clinical research. Furthermore, increasing patient engagement during the IC process may allow providers to streamline information that is aligned with patient information needs and preferences.
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.