Trial reportJournal of postgraduate medicine
An audit of questions asked by participants during the informed consent process for a phase 2/3 COVID-19 vaccine regulatory study at a tertiary referral centre.
Trial report in Journal of postgraduate medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate questions asked during the informed consent process by adult participants in a COVID-19 vaccine regulatory study conducted at our center in 2020. Methods: After approval by the IEC, informed consent documents and consent narratives were evaluated. We collated the total number and nature of questions. We then looked at the association between education, gender, socio-economic status, employment status, the language of consent, and number of questions. Between-group comparison (female vs male, unemployed vs employed, primary school vs secondary school vs graduate vs post-graduates, upper vs upper-middle vs middle vs lower middle vs lower) for the number of questions asked was done using univariate analysis followed by multivariate regression analysis with post hoc Tukey's test. Independent variables were gender, employment status, education and socioeconomic status and the dependent variable was the number of questions asked by the participant. All analyses were done at 5% significance. Content analysis was done in addition by creating categories after evaluation and coding them. Results: A total of N = 129 consents from the same number of participants were evaluated. A total of N = 127/129 participants asked at least one question. Sixty-seven percent of participants asked questions related to the study procedure, followed by 44.9% of participants who asked questions related to the safety of vaccine or placebo. A total of N = 295 questions were asked by the 127 participants. In content analysis, 149/295 (50.5%) questions were on study-related procedures followed by one quarter 76/295 (25.8%) based on safety associated with Investigational Product. Very few participants [2.4%] asked about post-trial access as the regulatory trial was a placebo-controlled trial. None of the independent variables were found to be associated with the number of questions. Conclusion: The majority of the questions asked by the participants were about study-related procedures and vaccine safety. No association was found between any of the independent variables and the number of questions asked. However, there were differences in the demographics of the trial participants between the pandemic and pre-pandemic era.
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.