Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30695047›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

"Tell me what you suggest, and let's do that, doctor": Patient deliberation time during informal decision-making in clinical trials.

Haruka Nakada, Sachie Yoshida, Kaori Muto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Quality evaluation of health information about breast cancer treatment found on WeChat public accounts.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Why 'understanding' of research may not be necessary for ethical emergency research.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2020
    Review
  5. 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

3 authors.

Haruka NakadaDepartment of Public Policy, Human Genome Center, The Institute of Medical Science, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-1856-4640
Sachie YoshidaDepartment of Public Policy, Human Genome Center, The Institute of Medical Science, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Kaori MutoDepartment of Public Policy, Human Genome Center, The Institute of Medical Science, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Informed consent is an essential part of an ethical clinical trial; to this end, researchers have developed several interventions to promote participants' full understanding of trials and thereby improve the consent process. However, few empirical studies have examined how patients make the decision of whether to give consent. The objective of this study, therefore, is to analyze patients' decision-making process when participating in clinical trials. We conduct an internet survey (n = 2,045) and interview data analysis (n = 40) with patients and categorize respondents into three types of participants: active, passive, and non-participation. Our results show that patients often make informal and quick decisions before medical staff provide them with relevant information during the informed consent process. For example, 55.9% of patients received initial information on clinical trials from an online article or web advertising, and 54.5% consulted no one about whether to participate in the clinical trial before making a decision. Only 20.7% of respondents subjectively spent time making the decision whether to participate; 43.0% of patients who said that they "spent time" coming to a decision took four or more days to reach a decision, while 8.3% of people who "did not spend time" making a decision took this among of time. Based on these results, we were able to break patients' decision-making process into four steps: first contact, informal decision making, relevant information, and formal decision making. Our results show that patients are most likely to make a decision based on the first information they receive on the clinical trial, whatever the source. To this end, having a list of questions for potential participants to ask researchers would be useful in helping better collecting information of clinical trials. In addition, research teams should give patients more than four days to decide between providing them with relevant information and obtaining written consent, even if the patient seems to make a quick decision.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAdultAgedClinical Trials as TopicComprehensionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationPatient SelectionSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30695047
PMCPMC6350979

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.