Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29886449›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Children's views on research without prior consent in emergency situations: a UK qualitative study.

Louise Roper, Frances C Sherratt, Bridget Young, Paul McNamara, Angus Dawson, Richard Appleton, Esther Crawley, Lucy Frith, Carrol Gamble, Kerry Woolfall

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Louise RoperInstitute of Psychology Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Frances C SherrattInstitute of Psychology Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Bridget YoungInstitute of Psychology Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Paul McNamaraDepartment of Child Health, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Angus DawsonSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Richard AppletonNeurology Department, Alder Hey Children's Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Esther CrawleyBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Lucy FrithInstitute of Psychology Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Carrol GambleClinical Trials Research Centre (CTRC), University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Kerry WoolfallInstitute of Psychology Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
University of Liverpool · GBBristol Regional Medical Center · USCzech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Psychology · CZMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL · GBNeurology, Inc · USUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

Department of Health SRF-2013-06-013Medical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe explored children's views on research without prior consent (RWPC) and sought to identify ways of involving children in research discussions.

designQualitative interview study.

settingParticipants were recruited through a UK children's hospital and online advertising.

participants16 children aged 7-15 years with a diagnosis of asthma (n=14) or anaphylaxis (n=2) with recent (<12 months) experience of emergency care.

resultsChildren were keen to be included in medical research and viewed RWPC as acceptable in emergency situations if trial interventions were judged safe. Children trusted that doctors would know about their trial participation and act in their best interests. All felt that children should be informed about the research following their recovery and involved in discussions with a clinician or their parent(s) about the use of data already collected as well as continued participation in the trial (if applicable). Participants suggested methods to inform children about their trial participation including an animation.

conclusionsChildren supported, and were keen to be involved in, clinical trials in emergency situations. We present guidance and an animation that practitioners and parents might use to involve children in trial discussions following their recovery.

Indexed as

Emergency TreatmentAdolescentAsthmaBiomedical ResearchChildFemaleHumansInformed ConsentInterviews as TopicMaleParentsPhysiciansProfessional-Patient RelationsQualitative ResearchUnited Kingdomconsentmedical ethicsqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID29886449
PMCPMC6009563
OpenAlexW2807669236

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.