Trial reportTrials2018
Optimising informed consent for participants in a randomised controlled trial in rural Uganda: a comparative prospective cohort mixed-methods study.
Trial report in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measuring and evaluating participant understanding of consent processes in clinical trials: a systematic review.Trials · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Video consent is preferred over written informed consent in pediatric rheumatology research.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Exploring the consent process among pregnant and breastfeeding women taking part in a maternal vaccine clinical trial in Kampala, Uganda: a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Practical Guidelines for Standardised Resolution of Important Protocol Deviations in Clinical Trials Conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2024Article
- Assessment of Consent Comprehension Among Kenyan Adolescents, Young Adults, and Parents: Comparison of Enhanced and Standard Consenting Procedures.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2024Article
- How to deal with the consent of adults with cognitive impairment involved in European geriatric living labs?Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2021Review
- BabyGel pilot: a pilot cluster randomised trial of the provision of alcohol handgel to postpartum mothers to prevent neonatal and young infant infection-related morbidity in the community.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPoor participant understanding of research information can be a problem in community interventional studies with rural African women, whose levels of illiteracy are high. This study aimed to improve the informed consent process for women living in rural eastern Uganda. We assessed the impact of alternative consent models on participants' understanding of clinical trial information and their contribution to the informed consent process in rural Uganda.
methodsThe study applied a parallel mixed-methods design for a prospective comparative cohort, nested within a pilot study on the community distribution of an alcohol-based hand rub to prevent neonatal sepsis (BabyGel pilot trial). Women of at least 34 weeks' pregnancy, suitable for inclusion in the BabyGel pilot trial, were recruited into this study from their homes in 13 villages in Mbale District. As part of the informed consent process, information about the trial was presented using one of three consent methods: standard researcher-read information, a slide show using illustrated text on a flip chart or a video showing the patient information being read as if by a newsreader in either English or the local language. In addition, all women received the patient information sheet in their preferred language. Each information-giving method was used in recruitment for 1 week. Two days after recruitment, women's understanding of the clinical trial was evaluated using the modified Quality of Informed Consent (QuIC) tool. They were also shown the other two methods and their preference assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. Semi-structured interviews were administered to each participant. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and translated verbatim, and thematically analysed.
resultsA total of 30 pregnant women in their homes participated in this study. Their recall of the trial information within the planned 48 h was assessed for the majority (90%, 27/30). For all three consent models, women demonstrated a high understanding of the study. There was no statistically significant difference between the slide-show message (mean 4.7; standard deviation, SD 0.47; range 4-5), video message (mean 4.9; SD 0.33; range 4-5) and standard method (mean 4.5; SD 0.53; range 4-5; all one-way ANOVA, p = 0.190). The slide-show message resulted in the most objective understanding of question items with the highest average QuIC score of 100 points. For women who had been recruited using any of the three models, the slide show was the most popular method, with a mean score for all items of not less than 4.2 (mean 4.8; SD 0.6; range 4-5). Most women (63%, 19/30) preferred the slide-show message, compared with 17% (5/30) and 20% (6/30) for the standard and video messages, respectively. The reasons given included the benefits of having pictures to aid understanding and the logical progression of the information.
conclusionOur results from this small study suggest that slide-show messages may be an effective and popular alternative way of presenting trial information to women in rural Uganda, many of whom have little or no literacy.
trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN67852437 . Registered on 18 March 2018.
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.