ArticleBMC medical ethics2020
Researcher and study participants' perspectives of consent in clinical studies in four referral hospitals in Vietnam.
Article 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 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- "When selling anything to an audience, visible publicity is key:" experiences, barriers, and enablers to participate in a COVID-19 study in Malawi.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Evaluating research ethics committees in Vietnam and Laos: Results of a validated self-assessment tool.PloS one · 2024Article
- The challenges and potential solutions of achieving meaningful consent amongst research participants in northern Thailand: a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Fragmented understanding: exploring the practice and meaning of informed consent in clinical trials in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Exploring attitudes to research involving human subjects among Vietnamese university students: establishing a prospective longitudinal mixed-methods student cohort at the University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City.Wellcome open research · 2023Article
- Model for developing context-sensitive responses to vulnerability in research: managing ethical dilemmas faced by frontline research staff in Kenya.BMJ global health · 2021Article
- Pediatric Critical Care in Resource Limited Settings-Lessening the Gap Through Ongoing Collaboration, Advancement in Research and Technological Innovations.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Review
- Towards a fair and transparent research participant compensation and reimbursement framework in Vietnam.International health · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWithin the research community, it is generally accepted that consent processes for research should be culturally appropriate and tailored to the context, yet researchers continue to grapple with what valid consent means within specific stakeholder groups. In this study, we explored the consent practices and attitudes regarding essential information required for the consent process within hospital-based trial communities from four referral hospitals in Vietnam.
methodsWe collected surveys from and conducted semi-structured interviews with study physicians, study nurses, ethics committee members, and study participants and family members regarding their experiences of participating in research, their perspectives toward research, and their views about various elements of the consent process.
resultsIn our findings, we describe three interrelated themes related to the consent process: (1) words and regulation; (2) reimbursement, suspicions, and joining; and (3) responsibilities. In general, stakeholders had highly varied perspectives of nghiên cứu (Eng.: research) and researchers used varying levels of detail regarding all aspects of the study in the consent process to build trust with and/or promote potential research participants' choices about taking part in research. Findings additionally highlight how researchers felt that offering financial reimbursements in a hospital setting, where payment for services was routine, would be unfamiliar to participants and could raise suspicions about the research. Participants, however, focused their discussions on reimbursement or alternative reasons for joining the study, such as health related benefits or altruism. Finally, participants often relied on their physician to help them decide about joining a study or not.
conclusionFurther research is needed to understand how researchers and participants make sense of and practice consent, and how that impacts participants' decision-making about research participation. To promote valid consent within this context, it is important to engage with hospital-based trial communities as a whole. The data from this study will inform future research on consent, guide the revisions of consent related policies within our research sites and point to several larger issues surrounding researcher-participant expectations, communication, and trust.
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.