Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37901309›Full record

ArticleResearch ethics2023

Overcoming barriers to informed consent in neurological research: Perspectives from a national survey.

Lauren R Sankary, Megan E Zelinsky, Paul J Ford, Eric C Blackstone, Robert J Fox

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research ethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lauren R SankaryCleveland Clinic, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9698-3616
Megan E ZelinskyCleveland Clinic, USA.
Paul J FordCleveland Clinic, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5423-8845
Eric C BlackstoneCase Western Reserve University, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1780-514X
Robert J FoxCleveland Clinic, USA.
Cleveland Clinic · USCase Western Reserve University · US

Funding

Translational and Therapeutics CoreP30AG072959 · NIA · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI Mark Lloyd Cohen · 2021 to 2026
$23.9M
Translational Therapeutics CoreP30AG062428 · NIA · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI BEKRIS, LYNN · 2019 to 2020
$5.0M
Deep cerebellar electrical stimulation for post-stroke motor recoveryUH3NS100543 · NINDS · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI BAKER, KENNETH B, MACHADO, ANDRE GUELMAN · 2016 to 2021
$4.9M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG062428NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072959NINDS NIH HHS UH3 NS100543
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ethical recruitment of participants with neurological disorders in clinical research requires obtaining initial and ongoing informed consent. The purpose of this study is to characterize barriers faced by research personnel in obtaining informed consent from research participants with neurological disorders and to identify strategies applied by researchers to overcome those barriers. This study was designed as a web-based survey of US researchers with an optional follow-up interview. A subset of participants who completed the survey were selected using a stratified purposeful sampling strategy and invited to participate in an in-depth qualitative interview by phone or video conference. Data were analyzed using a mixed methods approach, including content analysis of survey responses and thematic analysis of interview responses. Over 1 year, 113 survey responses were received from US research personnel directly involved in obtaining informed consent from participants in neurological research. Frequently identified barriers to informed consent included: cognitive and communication impairments (e.g. aphasia), unrealistic expectations of research participants, mistrust of medical research, time constraints, literacy barriers, lack of available social support, and practical or resource-related constraints. Strategies to enhance informed consent included: involving close others to support participant understanding of study-related information, collaborating with more experienced research personnel to facilitate training in obtaining informed consent, encouraging participants to review consent forms in advance of consent discussions, and using printed materials and visual references. Beyond conveying study-related information, researchers included in this study endorsed ethical responsibilities to support deliberation necessary to informed consent in the context of misconceptions about research, unrealistic expectations, limited understanding, mistrust, and/or pressure from close others. Findings highlight the importance of training researchers involved in obtaining informed consent in neurological research to address disease-specific challenges and to support the decision-making processes of potential research participants and their close others.

Indexed as

clinical trialsEthicsinformed consentneurologyrecruitment

Identifiers

PMID37901309
PMCPMC10609656
OpenAlexW4307886066

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.