ArticlePloS one2019
Challenges in informed consent decision-making in Korean clinical research: A participant perspective.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Measuring and evaluating participant understanding of consent processes in clinical trials: a systematic review.Trials · 2026Pooled it
- Readability of Informed Consent Forms for Medical and Surgical Clinical Procedures: A Systematic Review.Clinics and practice · 2025Review
- Readability and Comprehension of Anesthesia Informed Consent Forms in a Spanish County Hospital: An Observational Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Article
- Participants' Comprehension of the Informed Consent in an Epidemiological Study on Dementia Prevalence: A Qualitative Study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Reporting Survey Based Studies - a Primer for Authors.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.