ArticleJournal of health disparities research and practice2018
Who Speaks for Me? Addressing Variability in Informed Consent Practices for Minimal Risk Research Involving Foster Youth.
Article in Journal of health disparities research and practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research Participation of Minor Adolescents in Foster Care.Journal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology · 2021Review
- Perspectives on Informed Consent Practices for Minimal-Risk Research Involving Foster Youth.Pediatrics · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundYouth in protective custody (e.g.. foster care) are at higher risk for poorer physical and mental health outcomes compared with those who are not in custody. These differences may be due in part to the lack of research on the population to create evidence-based recommendations for health care delivery. A potential contributor to this lack of research is difficulties in obtaining informed consent for empirical studies in this population. The objective of this study was to describe the approaches to obtaining informed consent in minimal risk studies of foster youth and provide recommendations for future requirements.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature to characterize the informed consent approaches in published minimal risk research involving youth in foster care. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Embase, ERIC, Scopus, and EBMR. Inclusion criteria were: studies conducted in the United States, included current foster youth, minimal risk, peer reviewed, and published in English. Full text was reviewed, and individuals required to consent and assent were extracted.
resultsForty-nine publications from 33 studies were identified. Studies required 0 to 3 individuals to consent. Individuals required to give consent included case workers (16, 48%), foster caregivers (12, 36%), biological parents (7, 21%), judges (5, 15%), and guardian ad litems (2, 6%). Twenty-nine (88%) studies required the youth's assent. The studies used 14 different combinations of individuals. One (3%) study utilized a waiver of consent.
conclusionsThere is no consistent approach for obtaining informed consent for foster youth to participate in minimal risk research. Consent should ideally involve individuals with legal authority and knowledge of the individual youth's interests and should not be burdensome. Consensus regarding consent requirements may facilitate research involving foster youth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34377600PMC8351591W2939080954What 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.