ArticleEthics & human research
Perspectives of Information Access in the Informed Consent Process for Clinical Research Participation in Australia.
Article in Ethics & human research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Access to communication and information during the informed consent process for clinical research is essential for empowered decision-making. To build awareness of accessibility practices, this study aimed to explore current enablers and barriers experienced by potential research participants during informed consent procedures. A multimodal survey, capturing quantitative and qualitative data, was distributed through industry networks in Australia. The survey was open to people who had been involved in an informed consent process for a clinical research study. We collected survey data from August 2024 to January 2025. Quantitative data were reported descriptively, while qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis, with barriers and facilitators mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework. Half of the respondents (52%) disclosed having an information access challenge impacted by vision, intersectional disability, or neurodiversity. Five themes around information access were identified: communication, information quality, assistive technology, trusted supports, and information intervals. Our research highlights some suggested actions that can support researchers and research organizations in providing accessible communication and information formats, thereby enhancing equity and inclusion in informed consent practices.
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.