ArticleJournal of translational medicine2023
Get this thing out of my body! Factors determining consent for translational oncology research: a qualitative research.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDepending on the needs of scientific research at a given time, biobanks make biological samples and data available to researchers. In this article, we aim to describe the reasons and underlying logic that determine the decision to grant or deny consent to the conservation of tumour samples in a biological resource platform for research purposes. We make use of the CARPEM biological resource platform model, where broad consent is required.
methodsThe results are based on semi-structured interviews, conducted between 2019 and 2021, with 25 individuals having various profiles.
resultsAll the people interviewed readily accepted the principle of conserving a tumour sample for research purposes. They explained their decision by citing the desire to participate in research dedicated to improving therapeutic medicine. Their trust in research institutions or in doctors was an important factor in their consent. The tumorous nature of the samples also played an important role, as did the absence of constraints. Finally, the high level of consent was also based on the difficulty they had in conceiving what the future risks might be once the sample had been taken, whereas the fact that they did not know the nature or purpose of the research to be carried out when they signed the consent form posed some problems. These results stem from a lack of a culture of ethics among the people interviewed.
conclusionThe information provided in the context of consent at the CARPEM tumour bank seems inadequate for consent to be considered 'informed', given the low level of knowledge that people have of the risks and issues. Information is missing even though we feel it would not change consent or only marginally. This raises questions, since part of the act of granting consent is based on the implicit trust French people have in the hospital that collects the data and in research practices in general. In the minds of those who participate, transparency is the ground on which trust rests. Lack of transparency could be deleterious for future research practices. However, it is not by striving to improve information leaflets that the consent-related information will improve but, rather, by more effectively helping future patients to assimilate that information.
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.