ArticleInternet interventions2022
Ethical review procedures in international internet-based intervention studies.
Article in Internet interventions, 2022. 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.
- A French-Language Web-Based Intervention Targeting Prolonged Grief Symptoms in People Who Are Bereaved and Separated: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR formative research · 2024Trial
- How does the Untire app alleviate cancer-related fatigue? A longitudinal mediation analysis.Psycho-oncology · 2022Trial
- Patient narratives in an online hernia peer-support community: a qualitative netnographic analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Factors influencing the use of obstetric care during childbirth in rural Sudan: a qualitative study among healthcare providers.Gates open research · 2025Article
- Internal Psychometric Validation of an International Burden of Illness Survey for Idiopathic Multicentric Castleman Disease.Oncology and therapy · 2024Article
- Long Covid requires a global response centred on equity and dialogue.Global health action · 2023Article
- Designing, Conducting, and Reporting Survey Studies: A Primer for Researchers.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- The Blursday database as a resource to study subjective temporalities during COVID-19.Nature human behaviour · 2022Article
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
International internet-based studies could be accessible by participants from various countries worldwide. However, the jurisdiction of research ethics committees (RECs) or institutional review boards (IRBs) is bound to geographical state or country borders. How can researchers deal with the geographical boundaries in the jurisdiction of RECs/IRBs versus the worldwide, open character of international internet-based research? Should ethical approval be sought in each country where participants will be recruited? In this paper, we want to share our challenges in setting up the ethical review procedures in an international internet-based mHealth intervention study, to further the discussion on ethical procedures in internet-based 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.