ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2018
Moving Forward on Consent Practices in Australia.
Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consenting practices to enhance comprehension in research involving individuals with schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder in Uganda: a qualitative inquiry.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Where to Next for Māori Health Research Review Processes? Insights Into the Indigenous Context: An Integrative Systematic Literature Review.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2026Review
- Better Mechanisms Are Needed to Oversee HREC Reviews.Public health ethics · 2022Article
- Article
- Preparing accessible and understandable clinical research participant information leaflets and consent forms: a set of guidelines from an expert consensus conference.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- Harmonising the human biobanking consent process: an Irish experience.HRB open research · 2021Article
- Contributory factors to the evolution of the concept and practice of informed consent in clinical research: A narrative review.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2020Review
- Shortened consent forms for genome-wide sequencing: Parent and provider perspectives.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2020Article
- Bioethics and the Freedom Road. The JBI Community and the Change We Want To See.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2018Article
- Comprehensive consent in urology using decision aids, leaflets, videos and newer technologies: empowering patient choice and shared decision-making.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
- Perspectives of Information Access in the Informed Consent Process for Clinical Research Participation in Australia.Ethics & human researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Allowing persons to make an informed choice about their participation in research is a pre-eminent ethical and legal requirement. Almost universally, this requirement has been addressed through the provision of written patient information sheets and consent forms. Researchers and others have raised concerns about the extent to which such forms-particularly given their frequent lengthiness and complexity-provide participants with the tools and knowledge necessary for autonomous decision-making. Concerns are especially pronounced for certain participant groups, such as persons with low literacy and Indigenous persons. Multimedia strategies have the potential to usefully supplement current consent practices in Australia; however, information is needed about the need for supplementary consent practices, along with drivers for and barriers against adoption. This study initiates the required evidence base through an audit of informed consent practices for medical research in the Australian state of Tasmania to assess the need for, and current uptake of, supplementary consent strategies. Drivers for and barriers against adoption of multimedia consent practices were explored in detail through interviews with key stakeholders, including researchers, HREC chairs and members, and research participants, including Indigenous participants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29532387What 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.