ArticleBMC medical ethics2024
Researchers experience and views on participants' comprehension of informed consent in clinical trials in Malawi: a descriptive qualitative study.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInformed consent is the cornerstone of research ethics. One of its goals is that participants enter research with an understanding of what their participation entails. This paper is a study on how researchers understand the informed consent process. Previous studies have looked at this topic from a research participant perspective. However, few studies focus on the perspectives of the researchers. Therefore, this is an important paper that highlights an important issue (informed consent) from the perspective of those who administer it during research.
methodsIn-depth interviews were conducted with 18 researchers from 3 different research centers in Malawi working in clinical trials. The data was analyzed using open code utilizing the thematic approach to qualitative data.
resultsThis study identified that researchers have good awareness of the role of informed consent, how important it is for participants to understand the given information and ways to adjust their practice accordingly when obtaining it in order to enhance participant understanding. According to the research staff, most participants do not really understand all the concepts of the study at the initial visit, they gain more understanding during subsequent visits. It was emphasized that the best method of facilitating informed consent is reading the informed consent to the participant, thus a face-to-face conversation. Long and complex informed consent was identified as one of the barriers to participant understanding of the informed consent. Shortening the informed consent form and having additional conversation with the participants was suggested as one way of improving participant comprehension.
conclusionMost of the participants understand much of the information during subsequent visits as you keep reminding them since informed consent is an ongoing process. Existing relationship or trust between a participant and a researcher, may influence participants' decision and misguide their understanding on the purpose of the study. Adequate time should be allocated to informed consent discussions. Shortening the informed consent forms and having additional conversations with potential participants may help improve their understanding.
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.