Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37311635›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2023

Approaches to consent in public health research in secondary schools.

Chris Bonell, Neil Humphrey, Ilina Singh, Russell M Viner, Tamsin Ford

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Better Design, Better Engagement, Better Data: Adolescents' Insights for Improving Health Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Are Adolescents Sensitive About Sensitive Data? Exploring Student Concerns About Privacy, Confidentiality, and Data Use in Health Research.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Hard to reach? Methodological challenges researching vulnerable, gang-involved, young people.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  10. 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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Chris BonellDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK chris.bonell@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6253-6498
Neil HumphreyManchester Institute of Education, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Ilina SinghDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Russell M VinerUCL Great Ormond St. Institute of Child Health, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3047-2247
Tamsin FordChild and Adolescent Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5295-4904
Great Ormond Street Hospital · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe assess different approaches to seeking consent in research in secondary schools.

designWe review evidence on seeking active versus passive parent/carer consent on participant response rates and profiles. We explore the legal and regulatory requirements governing student and parent/carer consent in the UK.

resultsEvidence demonstrates that requiring parent/carer active consent reduces response rates and introduces selection biases, which impact the rigour of research and hence its usefulness for assessing young people's needs. There is no evidence on the impacts of seeking active versus passive student consent but this is likely to be marginal when researchers are directly in communication with students in schools. There is no legal requirement to seek active parent/carer consent for children's involvement in research on non-medicinal intervention or observational studies. Such research is instead covered by common law, which indicates that it is acceptable to seek students' own active consent when they are judged competent. General data protection regulation legislation does not change this. It is generally accepted that most secondary school students age 11+ are competent to provide their own consent for interventions though this should be assessed individually.

conclusionAllowing parent/carer opt-out rights recognises their autonomy while giving primacy to student autonomy. In the case of intervention research, most interventions are delivered at the level of the school so consent can only practically be sought from head teachers. Where interventions are individually targeted, seeking student active consent for these should be considered where feasible.

Indexed as

Public HealthSchoolsAdolescentChildCommunicationHumansMarriageParental ConsentETHICS (see Medical Ethics)SOCIAL MEDICINESTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID37311635
PMCPMC10277123
OpenAlexW4380537622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.