ArticleBMC medical ethics2021
Personalized and long-term electronic informed consent in clinical research: stakeholder views.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- E-Consent-a guide to maintain recruitment in clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.Trials · 2022Trial
- Bridging ethical gaps in digital health research: a framework for informed consent aligned with NIH guidance.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Article
- The Ethics of Decentralized Clinical Trials and Informed Consent: Taking Technologies' Soft Impacts into Account.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2025Article
- The use of large language models to enhance cancer clinical trial educational materials.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2025Article
- Medical researchersZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Data altruism and the "consent" question: a study into the "consent" models used under the GDPR and how the data altruism mechanism can act as a potential solution for the research community in the reuse of health data.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Testing and Practical Implementation of a User-Friendly Personalized and Long-Term Electronic Informed Consent Prototype in Clinical Research: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Informing a European guidance framework on electronic informed consent in clinical research: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- An e-consent framework for tiered informed consent for human genomic research in the global south, implemented as a REDCap template.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Using provocative design to foster electronic informed consent innovation.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- METORY: Development of a Demand-Driven Blockchain-Based Dynamic Consent Platform Tailored for Clinical Trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Rethinking informed consent in the time of COVID-19: An exploratory survey.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Digitizing the Informed Consent Process: A Review of the Regulatory Landscape in the European Union.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Co-creation with research participants to inform the design of electronic informed consent.Digital healthArticle
- Personalized and longitudinal electronic informed consent in clinical trials: How to move the needle?Digital healthArticle
- What do health care professionals, students, and laypeople in Greece believe about informed consent for research on medical practices? Unleashing Pandora's box.Porto biomedical journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe landscape of clinical research has evolved over the past decade. With technological advances, the practice of using electronic informed consent (eIC) has emerged. However, a number of challenges hinder the successful and widespread deployment of eIC in clinical research. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the views of various stakeholders on the potential advantages and challenges of eIC.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 39 participants from 5 stakeholder groups from across 11 European countries. The stakeholder groups included physicians, patient organization representatives, regulator representatives, ethics committee members, and pharmaceutical industry representatives, and all were involved in clinical research. Interviews were analyzed using the framework method.
resultsInterviewees identified that a powerful feature of eIC is its personalized approach as it may increase participant empowerment. However, they identified several ethical and practical challenges, such as ensuring research participants are not overloaded with information and offering the same options to research participants who would prefer a paper-based informed consent rather than eIC. According to the interviewees, eIC has the potential to establish efficient long-term interactions between the research participants and the research team in order to keep the participants informed during and after the study. Interviewees emphasized that a personal interaction with the research team is of utmost importance and this cannot be replaced by an electronic platform. In addition, interviewees across the stakeholder groups supported the idea of having a harmonized eIC approach across the European Member States.
conclusionsInterviewees reported a range of design and implementation challenges which needs to be overcome to foster innovation in informing research participants and obtaining their consent electronically. It was considered important that the implementation of eIC runs alongside the face-to-face contact between research participants and the research team. Moreover, interviewees expect that eIC could offer the opportunity to enable a personalized approach and to strengthen continuous communication over time. If successfully implemented, eIC may facilitate the engagement of research participants in clinical research.
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.