ArticlePLOS global public health2023
"How about me giving blood for the COVID vaccine and not being able to get vaccinated?" A cognitive interview study on understanding of and agreement with broad consent for future use of data and samples in Colombia and Nicaragua.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility, comprehension and applicability of broad consent in the emergency department: an exploratory mixed-methods study.Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- Critical consideration towards broad consent by patient experts: results of a semi-structured interview study on the secondary use of medical data.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Broad consent for future use, wherein researchers ask participants for permission to share participant-level data and samples collected within the study for purposes loosely related to the study objectives, is central to enabling ethical data and sample reuse. Ensuring that participants understand broad consent-related language is key to maintaining trust in the study and public health research. We conducted 52 cognitive interviews to explore cohort research participants' and their parents' understanding of the broad consent-related language in the University of California at Berkeley template informed consent (IC) form for biomedical research. Participants and their parents were recruited from long-standing infectious disease cohort studies in Nicaragua and Colombia and interviewed during the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted semi-structured interviews to assess participants' agreement with the key concepts in the IC after clarifying them through the cognitive interview. Participants did not understand abstract concepts, including collecting and reusing genetic data. Participants wanted to learn about incidental findings, future users and uses. Trust in the research team and the belief that sharing could lead to new vaccines or treatments were critical to participant support for data and sample sharing. Participants highlighted the importance of data and sample sharing for COVID-19 response and equitable access to vaccines and treatments developed through sharing. Our findings on participants' understanding of broad consent and preferences for data and sample sharing can help inform researchers and ethics review committees working to enable ethical and equitable data and sample sharing.
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.