ArticleBMC medical ethics2022
Operationalization of assent for research participation in pre-adolescent children: a scoping review.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a prospective ethical governance framework for a discrete choice experiment involving children aged 6-12 years: the PREF-ANX Kids study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Children's participation in assent to paediatric oncology research: experiences of children, siblings and parents.Trials · 2026Article
- Advancing child health through applied qualitative research.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Ethical reporting of consent and assent in paediatric oral health research in Malaysia: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Child Health Research Using linked Multi-domain Canadian Administrative Data: A Scoping Review.International journal of population data science · 2026Article
- Parent and child experiences of research participation and retention intentions in a Japanese birth cohort: insights from the Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS).Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2026Article
- Ethical Issues in International Research in Pediatric Psychology: Challenges and Opportunities.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2025Article
- Honoring childhood agency in developmental research: Best practices, applications, and insights.Methods in Psychology (Online) · 2025Article
- Ethical Reporting of Consent and Assent in Paediatric Oral Health Research in Malaysia: A Scoping Review.Research square · 2025Article
- Analysis of pediatric assent information in early-phase cancer clinical trials through a children's research advisory group.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- On-site electronic consent in pediatrics using generic Informed Consent Service (gICS): Creating a specialized setup and collecting consent data.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Decisional Capacity for Informed Consent of Transition age Children to Adolescents in Human Subject Research.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2024Article
- Comprehension by Caregivers and Adolescents of Clinical Trial Information Delivered via Multimedia Video Versus Conventional Practice: Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2023Article
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
backgroundSeeking assent from children for participation in medical research is an ethical imperative of numerous institutions globally. However, none of these organizations provide specific guidance on the criteria or process to be used when obtaining assent. The primary objective of this scoping review was to determine the descriptions of assent discussed in the literature and the reported criteria used for seeking assent for research participation in pre-adolescent children.
methodsMedline and Embase databases were searched until November 2020 using the term "assent" in the title or abstract. Inclusion criteria were (1) studies enrolling children which specifically described operationalization of the assent process and (2) studies of the assent process which provided a description of assent. Data collected included participant information, patient criteria for seeking assent, guidelines referenced, description of assent reported, how assent was obtained and assent information presented, and reported assent rate. For qualitative articles focusing on the assent process, important themes were identified.
resultsA total of 116 articles were included of which 79 (68.9%) operationalized assent and 57 studies (%) described the assent process. The most commonly reported criterion used to determine the ability of a child to assent was age (35.4%, 28/79). The reported minimal age for obtaining pediatric assent varied considerably across and within jurisdictions (5-13 years; median 7.5 years, IQR 7.0, 9.75). Cognitive ability was reported as a criterion for obtaining assent in 5.1% (4/79) of studies. Assent rates were only reported in 17.7% (14/79) of citations and ranged from 32.0 to 100%. Analysis of the 57 studies describing the assent process identified several themes, including age thresholds, assessment of capacity, variable knowledge of pediatric assent and parental roles.
conclusionWe found significant variation in criteria used for assessment of patient capacity, delivery of information used to obtain assent and documentation of the assent process. While we acknowledge that individual children, settings and jurisdictions may require different approaches to obtaining assent, there should be agreement on important principles to be followed with resulting common guidance on assessing capacity, delivering information and documentation of the assent process for publication.
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.