ReviewTrials2019
Development and evaluation of decision aids for people considering taking part in a clinical trial: a conceptual framework.
Review in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interventions supporting cancer patients in making decisions regarding participation in clinical trials - a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Article
- A meta-review of patient engagement, shared decision-making, and factors influencing equity-deserving populations' participation in clinical trials.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- "I'm tired of seeing my friends die": Barriers and facilitators to participating in clinical trials among rural people who use drugs in the United States.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2025Article
- Digital Informed Consent for Older Adults in Emergency Department Research.Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics Conference · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- (Re)Conceptualising 'good' proxy decision-making for research: the implications for proxy consent decision quality.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Person-based co-design of a decision aid template for people with a genetic predisposition to cancer.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
- Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Article
- Decision Making When Cancer Becomes Chronic: Needs Assessment for a Web-Based Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma Patient Decision Aid.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- Article
- Development of a decision support intervention for family members of adults who lack capacity to consent to trials.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Developing model biobanking consent language: what matters to prospective participants?BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- A concept analysis ofHRB open research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ethical requirements of informed consent stipulate that patients approached to participate in a clinical trial be provided with written information that must cover key aspects of the trial. For consent to be deemed "informed", potential participants should be provided with a range of information about the trials (e.g., the trial aims, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the trial, and their right to withdraw consent at any time). However, it is well documented that simple provision of this information does not ensure that participants make truly informed decisions. Decision aids, tools that have been shown in a treatment and screening context to support better-quality decisions, are emerging as a possible vehicle to support decision making about trial participation. However, information on how they should best be developed and evaluated in a clinical trial context is lacking. Therefore, this article, drawing on theoretical and empirical insights, outlines a framework for the development and evaluation of decision aids for people considering taking part in a clinical trial.
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.