Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30577809›Full record

Trial reportTrials2018

Optimising informed consent for participants in a randomised controlled trial in rural Uganda: a comparative prospective cohort mixed-methods study.

J Ditai, J Kanyago, M R Nambozo, N M Odeke, J Abeso, J Dusabe-Richards, P Olupot-Olupot, E D Carrol, A Medina-Lara, M Gladstone and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

J DitaiSanyu Africa Research Institute (SAfRI), Mbale Regional Referral Hospital, Pallisa-Kumi Road Junction, P.o Box 2190, Mbale, Uganda. J.Ditai@liv.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2670-7875
J KanyagoSanyu Africa Research Institute (SAfRI), Mbale Regional Referral Hospital, Pallisa-Kumi Road Junction, P.o Box 2190, Mbale, Uganda.
M R NambozoSanyu Africa Research Institute (SAfRI), Mbale Regional Referral Hospital, Pallisa-Kumi Road Junction, P.o Box 2190, Mbale, Uganda.
N M OdekeSanyu Africa Research Institute (SAfRI), Mbale Regional Referral Hospital, Pallisa-Kumi Road Junction, P.o Box 2190, Mbale, Uganda.
J AbesoSanyu Africa Research Institute (SAfRI), Mbale Regional Referral Hospital, Pallisa-Kumi Road Junction, P.o Box 2190, Mbale, Uganda.
J Dusabe-RichardsTropical Clinical Trials Unit, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK.
P Olupot-OlupotBusitema University, Faculty of Health Sciences, PO Box 1460, Mbale, Uganda.
E D CarrolDepartment of Clinical Infection, Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, 8 West Derby Street, Liverpool, L69 7BE, UK.
A Medina-LaraHealth Economics Group, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
M GladstoneSanyu Research Unit, Department of Women's and Children's Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool Women's' Hospital, Crown Street, Liverpool, L8 7SS, UK.
J StorrS3 Global, London, UK.
B FaragherTropical Clinical Trials Unit, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK.
A D WeeksSanyu Research Unit, Department of Women's and Children's Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool Women's' Hospital, Crown Street, Liverpool, L8 7SS, UK.
Mbale Hospital · UGUniversity of Liverpool · GBLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GBBusitema University · UGUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/M017990/1Medical Research Council MR/M017990/1)Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

Informed ConsentPatient SelectionAdolescentAdultComprehensionFemaleHand DisinfectionHand SanitizersHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth LiteracyHumansInfant, NewbornMiddle AgedMothersNeonatal SepsisPamphletsHand SanitizersConsent, Participant information sheet, Slide show, Video message show, Standard

Identifiers

PMID30577809
PMCPMC6304001
OpenAlexW2906624497

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.