ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2023
Electronic Consent at US Cancer Centers: A Survey of Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving Participant Recruitment in Clinical Trials: Comparative Analysis of Innovative Digital Platforms.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Large language models for surgical informed consent: an ethical perspective on simulated empathy.Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- ENIGMA+: a national, decentralized, remote consent study for clinical data and biospecimen collection in patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC.The oncologist · 2025Observational
- The Use of Electronic Consent (eConsent) Within the Ketamine for Long-Lasting Pain Relief After Surgery (KALPAS) Multicenter Trial.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Interactive Health Technology Tool for Kidney Living Donor Assessment to Standardize the Informed Consent Process: Usability and Qualitative Content Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- e-Consent in UK academic-led clinical trials: current practice, challenges and the need for more evidence.Trials · 2023Article
- Large Language Model-Based Chatbot vs Surgeon-Generated Informed Consent Documentation for Common Procedures.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Electronic consent in clinical care: an international scoping review.BMJ health & care informatics · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDigital technologies create opportunities for improving consenting processes in cancer care and research. Yet, little is known about the prevalence of electronic consenting, or e-consent, at US cancer care institutions.
methodsWe surveyed institutions in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network about their capabilities for clinical, research, and administrative e-consents; technologies used; telemedicine consents; multilingual support; evaluations; and opportunities and challenges in moving from paper-based to electronic processes. Responses were summarized across responding institutions.
resultsTwenty-five institutions completed the survey (81% response rate). Respondents were from all census regions and included freestanding and matrix cancer centers. Twenty (80%) had e-consent capabilities, with variability in the extent of adoption: One (5%) had implemented e-consent for all clinical, research, and administrative needs while 19 (95%) had a mix of paper and electronic consenting. Among those with e-consent capabilities, the majority (14 of 20, 70%) were using features embedded in their electronic health record. Most had a combination of paper and e-consenting for clinical purposes (18, 72%). About two-thirds relied entirely on paper for research consents (16, 64%) but had at least some electronic processes for administrative consents (15, 60%). Obstacles to e-consenting included challenges with procuring or maintaining hardware, content management, workflow integration, and digital literacy of patients. Successes included positive user experiences, workflow improvements, and better record-keeping. Only two of 20 (10%) respondents with e-consent capabilities had evaluated the impact of automating consent processes.
conclusionE-consent was prevalent in our sample, with 80% of institutions reporting at least some capabilities. Further progress is needed for the benefits of e-consenting to be realized broadly.
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.