Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31120918›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Challenges in informed consent decision-making in Korean clinical research: A participant perspective.

Im-Soon Choi, Eun Young Choi, Iyn-Hyang Lee

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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Reporting Survey Based Studies - a Primer for Authors.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020
    Review
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.

Im-Soon ChoiDepartment of Pharmacy, Kyungpook National University Medical Centre, Daegu, South Korea.
Eun Young ChoiCollege of Pharmacy, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, South Korea.
Iyn-Hyang LeeCollege of Pharmacy, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, South Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6644-0808

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study investigated how the essential elements of informed consent are realised during the consent process and examined the challenges in obtaining genuine informed consent in Korea.

methodsThrough purposive sampling, we recruited 21 subjects from those participating in anticancer drug research since 2013. We undertook 1:1 in-depth interviews and analysed the data by framework analysis.

resultsThemes raised throughout the interviews were categorised into 'disclosure' and 'understanding' of clinical information and 'decision'. Provider-centred information, both verbal and written, was delivered to each participant. There were few tools that the research staff might evaluate study participants' level of understanding of the provided information during the clinical trial. Although participants did not understand basic clinical trial concepts as much as desired, they may not seek to solve difficulties through communication with trial researchers. Doubts were raised about whether participants had sufficient capacity and free will to provide informed consent.

conclusionThere is a concern that informed consent can fall short of genuine in Korea. To ensure informed consent meets the international standard, greater efforts should be made to establish an explicit standard operational protocol for obtaining informed consent.

Indexed as

CommunicationComprehensionDecision MakingDisclosureInformed ConsentAdultAgedClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRepublic of KoreaResearch Personnel

Identifiers

PMID31120918
PMCPMC6532870

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.