ArticleBMC medical ethics2024
Scoping review and thematic analysis of informed consent in humanitarian emergencies.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges and strategies for delivering effective breast cancer care in conflict zones.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- Ethical Principles and Practices in HIV Acquisition Research in Humanitarian Crises: A Cross-Sectional Study.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2026Article
- Bridging ethical gaps in digital health research: a framework for informed consent aligned with NIH guidance.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
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
backgroundTo identify and to summarize challenges related to the informed consent process for research completed during humanitarian emergencies.
methodsUsing relevant search terms, a search of 5 databases was completed, without language, date, or study type restriction. Studies were screened for inclusion, with eligible studies being those that were relevant to the informed consent process for research studies completed in humanitarian emergencies. A Grounded Theory Analysis was completed to identify themes and subthemes.
resultsReview identified 30 relevant studies. We identified 11 challenges (lack of trust, therapeutic misconception, reduced capacity, security and privacy concerns, harmful research, power differential, literacy, language/local and cultural context, researcher burden and re-evaluation of ongoing trials) and 7 strategies (engage local research communities, use alternative to standard written consent process, modify traditional process of research ethics board review, dynamic consent, training of research staff, mandating transparency of commercial interests, and mandating reporting of informed consent process in all publications) to confront the challenges. These challenges and strategies were unique to the informed consent process in research conducted during humanitarian emergencies.
conclusionsThis scoping review identified an evidence-based guide for researchers and research ethics boards to perform ethical informed consent procedures in humanitarian emergencies.
trial registrationThis trial was not registered as scoping reviews can not be registered as per updated PROSPERO guidelines.
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.