Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31906925›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical ethics2020

Informed consent procedure in a double blind randomized anthelminthic trial on Pemba Island, Tanzania: do pamphlet and information session increase caregivers knowledge?

Marta S Palmeirim, Amanda Ross, Brigit Obrist, Ulfat A Mohammed, Shaali M Ame, Said M Ali, Jennifer Keiser

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Marta S PalmeirimSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Amanda RossSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Brigit ObristSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Ulfat A MohammedPublic Health Laboratory Ivo de Carneri, Chake Chake, Tanzania.
Shaali M AmePublic Health Laboratory Ivo de Carneri, Chake Chake, Tanzania.
Said M AliPublic Health Laboratory Ivo de Carneri, Chake Chake, Tanzania.
Jennifer KeiserSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland. jennifer.keiser@swisstph.ch.ORCID 0000-0003-0290-3521

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn clinical research, obtaining informed consent from participants is an ethical and legal requirement. Conveying the information concerning the study can be done using multiple methods yet this step commonly relies exclusively on the informed consent form alone. While this is legal, it does not ensure the participant's true comprehension. New effective methods of conveying consent information should be tested. In this study we compared the effect of different methods on the knowledge of caregivers of participants of a clinical trial on Pemba Island, Tanzania.

methodsA total of 254 caregivers were assigned to receive (i) a pamphlet (n = 63), (ii) an oral information session (n = 62) or (iii) a pamphlet and an oral information session (n = 64) about the clinical trial procedures, their rights, benefits and potential risks. Their post-intervention knowledge was assessed using a questionnaire. One group of caregivers had not received any information when they were interviewed (n = 65).

resultsIn contrast to the pamphlet, attending an information session significantly increased caregivers' knowledge for some of the questions. Most of these questions were either related to the parasite (hookworm) or to the trial design (study procedures).

conclusionsIn conclusion, within our trial on Pemba Island, a pamphlet was found to not be a good form of conveying clinical trial information while an oral information session improved knowledge. Not all caregivers attending an information session responded correctly to all questions; therefore, better forms of communicating information need to be found to achieve a truly informed consent.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationInformed ConsentPamphletsAnimalsAntinematodal AgentsCaregiversChildDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHookworm InfectionsHumansMaleMebendazoleSurveys and QuestionnairesTanzaniaAntinematodal AgentsMebendazoleClinical trialHookwormInformation sessionInformed consentMebendazolePamphletUnderstanding

Identifiers

PMID31906925
PMCPMC6945786

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.