Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36721403›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2023

A randomized implementation trial to increase adoption of evidence-informed consent practices.

Erin D Solomon, Jessica Mozersky, Melody Goodman, Meredith V Parsons, Kari A Baldwin, Annie B Friedrich, Jenine K Harris, James M DuBois

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Erin D SolomonBioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3295-0698
Jessica MozerskyBioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4942-4571
Melody GoodmanSchool of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8932-624X
Meredith V ParsonsBioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8869-3766
Kari A BaldwinBioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Annie B FriedrichBioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6326-751X
Jenine K HarrisGeorge Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3576-5906
James M DuBoisBioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3712-7051

Funding

WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
Understanding and addressing challenges to informed consent and research compliance during Covid-19 researchR01AG058254 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI DUBOIS, JAMES M · 2018 to 2022
$2.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345NIA NIH HHS R01 AG058254
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Several evidence-informed consent practices (ECPs) have been shown to improve informed consent in clinical trials but are not routinely used. These include optimizing consent formatting, using plain language, using validated instruments to assess understanding, and involving legally authorized representatives when appropriate. We hypothesized that participants receiving an implementation science toolkit and a social media push would have increased adoption of ECPs and other outcomes. Methods: We conducted a 1-year trial with clinical research professionals in the USA ( Results: Participants who engaged more with the toolkit were more likely to have tried to implement an ECP during the trial than participants less engaged with the toolkit or the active control group. However, there were no significant differences in the adoption of ECPs, intention to adopt, or positive attitudes. Participants reported the toolkit and social media push were satisfactory, and participating increased their awareness of ECPs. However, they reported lacking the time needed to engage with the toolkit more fully. Conclusions: Using an implementation science approach to increase the use of ECPs was only modestly successful. Data suggest that having institutional review boards recommend or require ECPs may be an effective way to increase their use.

Indexed as

formattingimplementation scienceInformed consentlegally authorized representativesplain languageresearch ethicsvalidated assessments of consent

Identifiers

PMID36721403
PMCPMC9884547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.