ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE
Communicating With Diverse Patients About Participating in a Biobank: A Randomized Multisite Study Comparing Electronic and Face-to-Face Informed Consent Processes.
Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE. 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative Effectiveness of eConsent: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- eConsent vs traditional consent among prospective biobank participants: a randomized study within a study trial.npj digital public health · 2026Article
- eConsent vs. Traditional Consent Among Prospective Biobank Participants: A Randomized Trial.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Perceptions of chemoprevention among individuals at high risk of oral cancer: qualitative study within the UK-based SAVER trial.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Medical researchersZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025Article
- Large Language Model-Based Chatbot vs Surgeon-Generated Informed Consent Documentation for Common Procedures.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- "If It's Ethical During a Pandemic…": Lessons from COVID-19 for Post-Pandemic Biobanking.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Some individuals' understanding of informed consent (IC) information may improve with electronic delivery, but others may benefit from face-to-face (F2F). This randomized, multisite study explores how individuals from diverse backgrounds understand electronic IC documents versus F2F, their confidence in understanding, and enrollment in research. A total of 501 patients at two U.S. biobanks with diverse populations participated. There were no overall differences between electronic and F2F understanding, but F2F predicted higher confidence in understanding and enrollment. Ethnicity and a higher educational level predicted higher understanding and confidence. Study findings suggest that electronic consent may lead to better understanding for non-Hispanic patients of higher socioeconomic status. F2F processes may lead to better understanding and higher enrollment of patients from Hispanic and lower socioeconomic levels. Researchers should carefully consider how they implement electronic IC processes and whether to maintain an F2F process to better address the needs and limitations of some populations.
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.