ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2022
Participant comprehension and perspectives regarding the convenience, security, and satisfaction with teleconsent compared to in-person consent: A parallel-group pilot study among Danish citizens.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality of Informed Consent via Telemedicine Compared With In-Person for Clinical Cancer Research.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Approaches and experiences implementing remote, electronic consent at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit.Trials · 2024Article
- Narrative review of telemedicine applications in decentralized research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Teleconsent via video conferencing enables decentralized trials with remote consent and has the additional benefit of allowing a real-time reaction to potential misunderstandings. However, participant acceptance of and satisfaction with teleconsent versus in-person consent processes are unknown. Methods: We conducted a parallel-group pilot study to evaluate participant comprehension and perspectives regarding the convenience, security, and satisfaction with teleconsent compared to in-person consent among Danish citizens for a hypothetical research study. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in perceptions of security or satisfaction between teleconsent and in-person consent arms. However, participants viewed teleconsent as more convenient than in-person consent, as no transportation was needed and the process was less time-consuming. Recruitment was also faster in the teleconsent arm, and more people dropped out of the in-person arm, citing difficulties with transportation and time. Conclusion: Decentralized clinical trials have been demonstrated to increase recruitment and enrollment rates, improve trial efficiency, and decrease dropout rates and trial delays. We add to this literature by suggesting that patients perceive teleconsent as similar to in-person consent, suggesting this is a feasible and acceptable substitution for in-person consent in multisite, decentralized trials. Future work should include patient perspectives from a larger, more diverse group of participants.
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.