Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38966258›Full record

ReviewBehavior analysis in practice2024

Clinical Informed Consent and ABA.

Abraham Graber, Allison Maguire

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Behavior analysis in practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

2 authors.

Abraham GraberDivision of Bioethics, Nisonger Center Affiliate Faculty, Department of Biomedical Education and Anatomy, Wexner College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8355-1638
Allison MaguireDepartment of Athletics, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The practice of clinical informed consent in America is governed by over 100 years of case law. Although predominant ethics resources for behavior analysts offer some guidance regarding the provision of clinical informed consent, such guidance remains limited. The goal of this article is thus to expand the contemporary literature on clinical informed consent in behavior analysis by providing a historical and contemporary guide to relevant case law. The article will highlight seminal moments in the history of case law regarding clinical informed consent, discuss their applicability to the process of clinical informed consent in behavior analysis, and provide an enhanced understanding of the ethical and legal obligations related to informed consent in the therapeutic context. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40617-023-00902-0.

Indexed as

EthicsInformed consentLaw

Identifiers

PMID38966258
PMCPMC11219615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.