Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37423643›Full record

ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2023

Electronic consent in clinical care: an international scoping review.

Susan Chimonas, Allison Lipitz-Snyderman, Konstantina Matsoukas, Gilad Kuperman

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Digital Tools and Strategies for Engaging Patients in Cancer Clinical Trials.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
    Review
  16. 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

4 authors.

Susan ChimonasDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA chimonas@mskcc.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7742-5950
Allison Lipitz-SnydermanDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Konstantina MatsoukasMSK Library, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Gilad KupermanHealth Informatics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDigital technologies create opportunities for improvement of consenting processes in clinical care. Yet little is known about the prevalence, characteristics or outcomes of shifting from paper to electronic consenting, or e-consent, in clinical settings. Thus questions remain around e-consent's impact on efficiency, data integrity, user experience, care access, equity and quality. Our objective was to scope all known findings on this critical topic. MATERIALS AND

methodsThrough an international, systematic scoping review, we identified and assessed all published findings on clinical e-consent in the scholarly and grey literatures, including consents for telehealth encounters, procedures and health information exchanges. From each relevant publication, we abstracted data on study design, measures, findings and other study features.

main outcome measuresMetrics describing or evaluating clinical e-consent, including preferences for paper versus e-consenting; efficiency (eg, time, workload) and effectiveness (eg, data integrity, care quality). User characteristics were captured where available.

resultsA total of 25 articles published since 2005, most from North America or Europe, report on the deployment of e-consent in surgery, oncology and other clinical settings. Experimental designs and other study characteristics vary, but nearly all focus on procedural e-consents. Synthesis reveals relatively consistent findings around improved efficiency and data integrity with, and user preferences for, e-consent. Care access and quality issues are less frequently explored, with disparate findings. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionThe literature is nascent and largely focused on issues that are immediate and straightforward to measure. As virtual care pathways expand, more research is urgently needed to ensure that care quality and access are advanced, not compromised, by e-consent.

Indexed as

Health Information ExchangeTelemedicineElectronicsHumansInformed ConsentNorth Americadigital technologyInformed consenttelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID37423643
PMCPMC10335420

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.