Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32404063›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2020

Improving assent in health research: a rapid systematic review.

Dominik Soll, Maria Magdalena Guraiib, Nigel Campbell Rollins, Andreas Alois Reis

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Assessment of Consent Comprehension Among Kenyan Adolescents, Young Adults, and Parents: Comparison of Enhanced and Standard Consenting Procedures.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Dominik SollDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. dominik.soll@charite.de.ORCID 0000-0002-7377-0220
Maria Magdalena GuraiibGlobal Health Ethics Team, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Nigel Campbell RollinsMaternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Andreas Alois ReisGlobal Health Ethics Team, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnrolment in a research study requires the participant's informed consent. In the case of minors, informed consent of the respective legal guardian is obtained in conjunction with informed assent of the underage p articipant. Since comprehension of the information provided may be limited, effective interventions to improve understanding should be identified. Thus, it is the objective of this study to review quantitative studies that tested interventions to improve the understanding of information provided during assent processes in health research. The studied population consisted of minors that participated or were willing to participate in research. The primary outcome was the level of comprehension after intervention.

methodsA systematic search was conducted in eleven databases including regional databases: PubMed, Web of Science, ERIC, PsycINFO, CINAHL, POPLINE, AIM, LILACS, WPRIM, IMSEAR, and IMEMR and included references from inception of the database until July 2018 except PubMed which spanned the period from May 2013 to July 2018. Search terms focused on Informed Consent/Assent, Minors, and Comprehension. To complement the search, reference lists of retrieved publications were additionally searched. We included all quantitative studies that were conducted in minors, tested an intervention, covered assent processes in health research, and assessed comprehension. One reviewer screened titles, abstracts, and full-texts to determine eligibility and collected data on study design, population, intervention, methods, outcome, and for critical appraisal. Interventions comprised enhanced paper forms, interspersed questions, multimedia format, and others.

resultsOut of 7089 studies initially identified, 19 studies comprising 2805 participants and conducted in seven countries were included in the review. Fourteen studies (74 %) tested an intervention against control and ten (53 %) were randomized controlled trials. Heterogeneous methodology as well as incomplete outcome and statistical reporting impaired the reliability of the collected data. Positive effects were suggested for use of enhanced paper forms, interspersed questions, use of pie charts, and organizational factors.

conclusionsImproving assent in health research is an under-researched area with little reliable evidence. While some interventions are proposed to improve understanding in assent processes, further investigation is necessary to be able to give evidence-based recommendations.

trial registrationPROSPERO ID: 106808.

Indexed as

ComprehensionInformed ConsentHumansReproducibility of ResultsResearch Designadolescentschildrencomprehensioninformed assentInformed consentinformed consent formsminorsrapid reviewunderstanding

Identifiers

PMID32404063
PMCPMC7222594

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.