Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 20, 2026.

Participants’ understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis

Nguyen Thanh Tam, Nguyen Tien Huy, Le Thi Bich Thoa and 4 more

Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2015 · Meta-analysis

doi:10.2471/blt.14.141390

Abstract

Objective. To estimate the proportion of participants in clinical trials who understand different components of informed consent.

Methods. Relevant studies were identified by a systematic review of PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar and by manually reviewing reference lists for publications up to October 2013. A meta-analysis of study results was performed using a random-effects model to take account of heterogeneity.

Findings. The analysis included 103 studies evaluating 135 cohorts of participants. The pooled proportion of participants who understood components of informed consent was 75.8% for freedom to withdraw at any time, 74.7% for the nature of study, 74.7% for the voluntary nature of participation, 74.0% for potential benefits, 69.6% for the study’s purpose, 67.0% for potential risks and side-effects, 66.2% for confidentiality, 64.1% for the availability of alternative treatment if withdrawn, 62.9% for knowing that treatments were being compared, 53.3% for placebo and 52.1% for randomization. Most participants, 62.4%, had no therapeutic misconceptions and 54.9% could name at least one risk. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses identified covariates, such as age, educational level, critical illness, the study phase and location, that significantly affected understanding and indicated that the proportion of participants who understood informed consent had not increased over 30 years.

Conclusion. The proportion of participants in clinical trials who understood different components of informed consent varied from 52.1% to 75.8%. Investigators could do more to help participants achieve a complete understanding.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 20, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

Informed consent has its roots in the 1947 Nuremberg Code and the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and is now a guiding principle for conduct in medical research., Within its ethical and legal foundations, informed consent has two specific goals in clinical research: (i) to respect and promote a participant’s autonomy; and (ii) to protect participants from harm., Obtaining written informed consent from participants before enrolment in a study is an internationally accepted standard.–

Five concepts must be considered in establishing informed consent: voluntariness, capacity, disclosure, understanding and decision., Voluntariness means that an individual’s decision to participate is made without coercion or persuasion. Capacity relates to an individual’s ability to make decisions that stems from his or her ability to understand the information provided. Disclosure involves giving research participants all relevant information about the research, including its nature, purpose, risks and potential benefits as well as the alternatives available. Understanding implies that research participants are able to comprehend the information provided and appreciate its relevance to their personal situations. Decision is that made to participate, or not.,

The quality of informed consent in clinical research is determined by the extent to which participants understand the process of informed consent. Understanding plays a pivotal role in clinical research because it directly affects how ethical principles are applied in practice.– Although the literature on informed consent began to accumulate in the 1980s, little is known about how patients’ understanding has evolved as no meta-analysis has been previously performed. A systematic review considering literature up to 2006 found that only around 50% of participants understood all components of informed consent in surgical and clinical trials. Another systemic review, which included data up to 2010, compared only the quality of informed consent in developing and developed countries. The objective of this study was, therefore, to investigate the quality of informed consent in clinical trials in recent decades by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of the data available.

Methods

We conducted a literature search of PubMed and Scopus using the following terms: “informed consent[mh] AND (comprehension[mh] OR decision making[mh] OR knowledge[mh] OR perception[mh] OR communication[mh] OR understanding) AND (randomized controlled trials as topic[mh] OR clinical trial as topic[mh])”. In addition, in a simple search of Scopus, we used: “allintitle: understanding OR comprehension OR knowledge OR decision OR perception OR communication “informed consent”.” In Google Scholar, we used the keywords “informed consent” as the exact phrase and “understanding, comprehension, knowledge, decision, perception, communication” with the option with at least one of the words and selected “where my words occur in the title of the article”. The search strategy was developed as previously described. The searches covered all data entered up to October 2013. In addition, we analysed the reference lists of relevant articles. All studies identified were reviewed independently for eligibility by two of five authors and conflicts were resolved by seeking a consensus with other authors.

A study was eligible for inclusion if it assessed the participant’s or the participant’s guardian’s understanding of informed consent, and at least one of the following components of the informed consent process:, therapeutic misconception (i.e. lack of awareness of the uncertainty of success); ability to name at least one risk; knowing that treatments were being compared; or understanding of: (i) the nature of the study (i.e. awareness of participating in research); (ii) the purpose of the study; (iii) the risks and side-effects; (iv) the direct benefits; (v) placebo; (vi) randomization; (vii) the voluntary nature of participation; (viii) freedom to withdraw from the study at any time; (ix) the availability of alternative treatment if withdrawn from a trial; or (x) confidentiality (i.e. personal information will not be revealed). There was no restriction by language, age (i.e. children or adults) or study design. French and Japanese articles were translated into English by authors with a good command of these languages. We excluded articles on studies that: (i) compared or evaluated methods of informed consent; (ii) used an intervention to improve participants’ knowledge of informed consent; (iii) involved animals or included only healthy volunteers (e.g. simulated studies); (iv) involved patients with cognitive deficits; (v) were published as posters, in conference proceedings or as a thesis; or (vi) were not clinical trials. Our study protocol was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) with the identifier CRD42013005526. The study selection process, which was carried out in accordance with MOOSE guidelines for meta-analyses and systematic reviews of observational studies, is shown in Fig. 1.

Quality of evaluation

The quality of the informed consent evaluation was assessed independently by two authors using seven metrics: (i) the description of participants; (ii) whether or not interviewers were members of the original trial’s staff; (iii) the description of the evaluation method (i.e. by questionnaire or interview); (iv) the description of the questionnaire; (v) the selection of participants (i.e. consecutive participants or a random or cross-sectional selection); (vi) the description of exclusion criteria; and (vii) the timing of the evaluations. Quality scores for the studies included are shown in Appendix A (available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270506278_Online_Only_Supplements_for_Three_decades_of_participants_understanding_of_informed_consent_in_clinical_trials_a_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis).

Study data

Data were extracted for each study on: (i) the year of publication; (ii) the study language and the country where the study was conducted; (iii) the phase of the study; (iv) the baseline characteristics of the study population, including the source of the population, the number of participants and their age, sex and educational level; (v) the medical specialty of the clinical research, including the seriousness of the disease studied; (vi) the method and timing of the informed consent evaluation; (vii) the type of questions participants had to answer; and (viii) the components of informed consent assessed, including understanding of the nature and purpose of the study, knowing that treatments were being compared, therapeutic misconceptions, participants’ ability to name risks, awareness of potential risks and side-effects and understanding of potential benefits, randomization, placebo, the voluntary nature of participation, freedom to withdraw at any time, confidentiality and the availability of alternative treatment.

Statistical analysis and data synthesis

If a study investigated more than one population, a data set was created for each population. The proportion of participants who understood the different components of informed consent was pooled across studies using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2.0 (Biostat, Englewood, United States of America) and was expressed as a percentage with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The heterogeneity of study findings was evaluated using the Q statistic and the I2 test and was considered significant if the P-value was < 0.10. Since studies gave heterogeneous results for all components, the proportion of participants who understood each component was pooled using a random-effects model that included weighting for each study. In examining the effect of covariates on these proportions, we used a subgroup or meta-regression analysis when eight or more studies assessed a particular covariate. Differences between subgroups and trends were considered significant if the P-value of Cochran’s Q test was < 0.05. To determine if publication bias was present, we used Begg’s funnel plot and Egger’s regression test: a P-value < 0.10 indicated significant publication bias. When publication bias was present, we used Duvall and Tweedie’s trim-and-fill method to enhance symmetry by adjusting for studies that appeared to be missing.– The final proportion of participants who understood each component was computed after adjustment for missing studies.

Results

The final analysis included 103 studies: 85 from the database search and 18 from reviewing reference lists.– Ultimately 135 data sets were included because some studies evaluated more than one population (Appendix A). The sample size ranged from 8 to 1789 participants and the response rate to interview questions ranged from 9.3% to 100%. Participants were adults in 95 data sets, parents or guardians in 34, adult and child patients in three, child patients in two and adult patients or parents in one. Overall, 79% (106) of data sets were conducted in middle- or high-income countries – as classified by the World Bank – and 67% (90) did not report the phase of the clinical trial. The medical specialty was cancer in 33% (44) of data sets, infectious disease in 14% (19), vaccines in 10%, (13) cardiovascular disease in 7% (9), neurology in 6% (8) and other in 31% (42). Moreover, 98% (132) were published in English and only 1% each in Japanese (1) and French (2). Details of the studies and data sets are presented in Table 1 (available at: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/93/3/14-141390).

Understanding of informed consent

The number of data sets that covered each component of informed consent is shown in Appendix B (available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270506278_Online_Only_Supplements_for_Three_decades_of_participants_understanding_of_informed_consent_in_clinical_trials_a_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis). Understanding of freedom to withdraw at any time was investigated in the largest number of studies (n = 79), whereas understanding of placebo was investigated in the smallest number (n = 15). Our analysis showed some variation in the proportion of participants who understood different components of informed consent. The highest proportions were 75.8% (95% CI: 70.6–80.3) for freedom to withdraw from the study at any time, 74.7% (95% CI: 68.8–79.8) for the nature of study, 74.7% (95% CI: 67.9–80.5) for the voluntary nature of participation and 74.0% (95% CI: 65.0–81.3) for potential benefits (Fig. 2 and Appendix B). Lower proportions were 69.6% (95% CI: 63.5–75.1) for the purpose of the study, 67.0% (95% CI: 57.4–75.4) for potential risks and side-effects, 66.2% (95% CI: 55.3–75.7) for confidentiality, 64.1% (95% CI: 53.7–73.4) for the availability of alternative treatment if withdrawn and 62.9% (95% CI: 45.5–77.5) for knowing that treatments were being compared. In addition, 62.4% (95% CI: 50.1–73.2) had no therapeutic misconceptions. The lowest proportions were 54.9% (95% CI: 43.3–65.0) for naming at least one risk, followed by 53.3% (95% CI: 38.4–67.6) for understanding of placebo and 52.1% (95% CI: 41.3–62.7) for understanding of randomization.

Effect of covariates

We performed a meta-regression analysis to evaluate the influence of particular covariates on the proportion of participants who understood informed consent (Table 2). We found that gender had no effect but that, importantly, significantly fewer patients from low-income countries than from middle- and high countries understood randomization, the voluntary nature of participation and freedom to withdraw at any time. In addition, critically ill patients were significantly less likely to understand the nature or benefits of the study or confidentiality or to be able to name at least one risk. However, older participants were more likely to understand the nature of the study and freedom to withdraw at any time. A lower educational level was associated with a reduced likelihood of understanding the nature of the study, placebo, randomization and freedom to withdraw at any time. Participants in phase-I clinical trials were less likely than participants in phase-II, -III or -IV trials to understand the purpose of the study and were more likely to have therapeutic misconceptions. Participants in phase-I trials were also more likely to understand potential risks and side-effects and freedom to withdraw at any time. Participants assessed using open-ended questions were less likely to understand the purpose of the study (Fig. 3), the voluntary nature of participation or freedom to withdraw at any time or to be able to name at least one risk. Additionally, the later the evaluation of understanding was carried out, the less likely the participant was to understand confidentiality or to be able to name at least one risk. The quality of the evaluation did not influence understanding.

Our data also provided us with the opportunity to analyse how study participants’ understanding of informed consent had changed over 30 years. Surprisingly, there was no significant change in understanding of any component (Fig. 4, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6). In particular, we were interested in the past 20 years, after the World Health Organization introduced guidelines for good clinical practice in trials. After removing four early studies, we again found no significant change in understanding of any component, including the freedom to withdraw (Fig. 7). Furthermore, there was no significant change in understanding of any component over the past 13 years in all studies combined or in subgroups of participants, including those assessed using open-ended questions, those assessed using closed-ended questions and those in middle- and high-income countries assessed using closed-ended questions (Appendices C, D, E and F, respectively, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270506278_Online_Only_Supplements_for_Three_decades_of_participants_understanding_of_informed_consent_in_clinical_trials_a_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis).

Discussion

Obtaining informed consent from participants in clinical research is essential because it promotes their welfare and ensures their rights., However, participants must have a good understanding of what informed consent entails. Our meta-analysis indicates that around 75% of individuals understood the nature of the study, their right to refuse to participate, their right to withdraw at any time and the direct benefits of participation. This percentage is higher than the figure of around 50% found in a previous systematic review probably because we included only clinical trials, excluded studies of patients with cognitive deficits and weighted the meta-analysis to account for heterogeneous data.

Our data also highlight the difficulty participants had in understanding particular components of informed consent, such as randomization and the use of placebo. Moreover, although participants were aware of potential risks and side-effects, they were less likely to be able to name at least one risk and, although they understood the benefits of participating in a study, they were less aware of the uncertainty of these benefits (i.e. had therapeutic misconceptions). These findings were also noted in previous studies.,,– They are, perhaps, not surprising since a participant’s understanding depends, to a certain degree, on their literacy as well as on the duration of the informed consent process and the explanatory skills of the researchers.–

In addition, the meta-regression was able to identify differences in understanding of informed consent between population groups. Older participants more often than younger participants understood the nature of the study and freedom to withdraw at any time. The reason for this difference requires further study. As noted in a previous systematic review, participants from developing countries were less likely than others to understand the voluntary nature of participation and freedom to withdraw at any time. It is possible that patients in these countries dare not refuse to join or dare not withdraw from a study because they fear their doctor’s disapproval. Participants from developing countries and those with a low level of literacy were less likely to understand randomization.

Phase-I clinical trials are usually conducted in small numbers of participants to test a drug’s safety and dose range. Consequently, it was expected that participants in phase-I trials would be less likely than those in more advanced trials to understand the purpose of the study or that the benefits were uncertain. In contrast, participants in phase-I trials were more likely to be aware of potential risks and of their freedom to withdraw at any time.

Compared with the use of open-ended questions to evaluate participants' understanding, the use of closed-ended questions was associated with higher rates of understanding of the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation and freedom to withdraw and with a greater likelihood of being able to name at least one risk. However, the use of closed-ended questions could have led to understanding being overestimated because respondents had to choose from a limited number of possible answers and did not have to think clearly about the issues. Consequently, the use of open-ended questions may have reflected better the true extent of understanding since respondents had to put their understanding into words.

Finally, an unexpected finding of our analysis was that understanding of the potential risks and side-effects of trials, of placebo and of freedom to withdraw had not changed over 30 years. This is despite considerable progress in medical research methods over this time and many attempts made to improve the quality of informed consent. There are four possible explanations: (i) the maximum proportion of participants who understand these concepts has been reached; (ii) the increasing complexity of clinical trials has made the informed consent process longer and more difficult to understand; (iii) not enough effort has been put into enhancing the quality of the informed consent process; and (iv) our analysis did not have the statistical power to detect a significant increase in understanding. In fact, the best way to improve understanding of informed consent is still debated. A recent meta-analysis of interventions for improving understanding found that enhanced consent forms and extended discussions led to significant increases in understanding whereas multimedia approaches did not. In other words, simple measures such as well formatted, easily readable consent forms and intensive discussions with participants may be more effective than more complex measures.,–

Although an understanding of all the components of informed consent we investigated is required for patients to make a decision on study participation, some components were assessed more often than others. We found a good correlation between the likelihood that a participant would understand a specific component of informed consent and the number of studies that investigated understanding of that component (Appendix G). This suggests either that it was simpler to evaluate understanding of some components or that some components were more important.

One limitation of our study is that we were not able to analyse the effect on understanding of informed consent of the presence of a nurse during the informed consent process, of the duration of the process or of participants choosing not to take part in a clinical trial because only a small number of studies investigated these factors. Moreover, only 79 of the 135 data sets gave information on whether the interviewers were investigators in the original clinical trial. Hence, we were not able to analyse the effect of this factor on the results. Another limitation is that we included studies of children because they have the right to decide whether to participate., However, the number of studies involving children was small and our sensitivity analysis showed that removing these studies did not influence the pooled results. Although we found a high level of heterogeneity across studies for understanding of all components of informed consent and although Cox et al. suggest that, in these circumstances, individual studies should be described rather than combined in a meta-analysis, we, like other groups, chose to perform a meta-analysis with a regression analysis and subgroup analysis to gain a better insight into how covariates affect understanding.–

In conclusion, we found that most participants in clinical trials understood fundamental components of informed consent such as the nature and benefits of the study, freedom to withdraw at any time and the voluntary nature of participation. Understanding of other components, such as randomization and placebo, was less satisfactory and has not improved over 30 years. Our findings suggest that investigators could make a greater effort to help research participants achieve a complete understanding of informed consent. This would ensure that participants’ decision-making is meaningful and that their interests are protected.

References 154

  1. 1.

    Grodin MA, Annas GJ. Legacies of Nuremberg. Medical ethics and human rights. JAMA. 1996 11 27;276(20):1682–3.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.1996.03540200068035

  2. 2.

    Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000 5 24-31;283(20):2701–11.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.283.20.2701

  3. 3.

    Annas GJ. Doctors, patients, and lawyers–two centuries of health law. N Engl J Med. 2012 8 2;367(5):445–50.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmra1108646

  4. 4.

    Jefford M, Moore R. Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents. Lancet Oncol. 2008 5;9(5):485–93.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(08)70128-1

  5. 5.

    Will JF. A brief historical and theoretical perspective on patient autonomy and medical decision making: Part II: The autonomy model. Chest. 2011 6;139(6):1491–7.

    Not in our library10.1378/chest.11-0516

  6. 6.

    Wendler D. How to enroll participants in research ethically. JAMA. 2011 4 20;305(15):1587–8.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.2011.421

  7. 7.

    Glickman SW, McHutchison JG, Peterson ED, Cairns CB, Harrington RA, Califf RM, et al. Ethical and scientific implications of the globalization of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 2009 2 19;360(8):816–23.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmsb0803929

  8. 8.

    Rivera R, Borasky D, Rice R, Carayon F, Wong E. Informed consent: an international researchers’ perspective. Am J Public Health. 2007 1;97(1):25–30.

    Not in our library10.2105/ajph.2005.081604

  9. 9.

    World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013 11 27;310(20):2191–4.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.2013.281053

  10. 10.

    Boga M, Davies A, Kamuya D, Kinyanjui SM, Kivaya E, Kombe F, et al. Strengthening the informed consent process in international health research through community engagement: The KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme Experience. PLoS Med. 2011 9;8(9):e1001089.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pmed.1001089

  11. 11.

    del Carmen MG, Joffe S. Informed consent for medical treatment and research: a review. Oncologist. 2005 9;10(8):636–41.

    Not in our library10.1634/theoncologist.10-8-636

  12. 12.

    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.

    Not in our library

  13. 13.
    The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials · 2012
    No notice
  14. 14.

    Sreenivasan G. Does informed consent to research require comprehension? Lancet. 2003 12 13;362(9400):2016–8.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(03)15025-8

  15. 15.

    Lad PM, Dahl R. Audit of the informed consent process as a part of a clinical research quality assurance program. Sci Eng Ethics. 2014 6;20(2):469–79.

    Not in our library10.1007/s11948-013-9461-4

  16. 16.

    Richardson V. Patient comprehension of informed consent. J Perioper Pract. 2013 Jan-Feb;23(1-2):26–30.

    Not in our library10.1177/1750458913023001-204

  17. 17.

    Bhutta ZA. Beyond informed consent. Bull World Health Organ. 2004 10;82(10):771–7.

    Not in our library

  18. 18.

    Falagas ME, Korbila IP, Giannopoulou KP, Kondilis BK, Peppas G. Informed consent: how much and what do patients understand? Am J Surg. 2009 9;198(3):420–35.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.02.010

  19. 19.

    Mandava A, Pace C, Campbell B, Emanuel E, Grady C. The quality of informed consent: mapping the landscape. A review of empirical data from developing and developed countries. J Med Ethics. 2012 6;38(6):356–65.

    Not in our library10.1136/medethics-2011-100178

  20. 20.

    Aromataris E, Riitano D. Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. A guide to the literature search for a systematic review. Am J Nurs. 2014 5;114(5):49–56.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.naj.0000446779.99522.f6

  21. 21.

    Protection of human subjects. Code Fed Requl Public Welfare. Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 1995 Oct 1;Title 4s: sections 46-101 to 46-409.

    Not in our library

  22. 22.

    Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000 4 19;283(15):2008–12.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.283.15.2008

  23. 23.

    Sedgwick P. Meta-analyses: heterogeneity and subgroup analysis. BMJ. 2013 6 24;346 jun24 2:f4040

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.f4040

  24. 24.

    Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA. 2006 2 8;295(6):676–80.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.295.6.676

  25. 25.

    Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000 6;56(2):455–63.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x

  26. 26.

    Mengoli C, Cruciani M, Barnes RA, Loeffler J, Donnelly JP. Use of PCR for diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 2;9(2):89–96.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1473-3099(09)70019-2

  27. 27.

    Kaufert JM, O'Neil J. Culture, power and informed consent: the impact of Aboriginal health interpreters on decision-making. In: Coburn D, D'Arcy C, Torrance G, editors. Health and Canadian society: sociological perspectives. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 1998.

    Not in our library

  28. 28.

    Ellis RD, Sagara I, Durbin A, Dicko A, Shaffer D, Miller L, et al. Comparing the understanding of subjects receiving a candidate malaria vaccine in the United States and Mali. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010 10;83(4):868–72.

    Not in our library10.4269/ajtmh.2010.10-0062

  29. 29.

    Vallely A, Lees S, Shagi C, Kasindi S, Soteli S, Kavit N, et al.; Microbicides Development Programme (MDP). How informed is consent in vulnerable populations? Experience using a continuous consent process during the MDP301 vaginal microbicide trial in Mwanza, Tanzania. BMC Med Ethics. 2010;11(1):10.

    Not in our library10.1186/1472-6939-11-10

  30. 30.

    Hill Z, Tawiah-Agyemang C, Odei-Danso S, Kirkwood B. Informed consent in Ghana: what do participants really understand? J Med Ethics. 2008 1;34(1):48–53.

    Not in our library10.1136/jme.2006.019059

  31. 31.

    Minnies D, Hawkridge T, Hanekom W, Ehrlich R, London L, Hussey G. Evaluation of the quality of informed consent in a vaccine field trial in a developing country setting. BMC Med Ethics. 2008;9(1):15.

    Not in our library10.1186/1472-6939-9-15

  32. 32.

    Kaewpoonsri N, Okanurak K, Kitayaporn D, Kaewkungwal J, Vijaykadga S, Thamaree S. Factors related to volunteer comprehension of informed consent for a clinical trial. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2006 9;37(5):996–1004.

    Not in our library

  33. 33.

    Krosin MT, Klitzman R, Levin B, Cheng J, Ranney ML. Problems in comprehension of informed consent in rural and peri-urban Mali, West Africa. Clin Trials. 2006;3(3):306–13.

    Not in our library10.1191/1740774506cn150oa

  34. 34.

    Moodley K, Pather M, Myer L. Informed consent and participant perceptions of influenza vaccine trials in South Africa. J Med Ethics. 2005 12;31(12):727–32.

    Not in our library10.1136/jme.2004.009910

  35. 35.

    Pace C, Emanuel EJ, Chuenyam T, Duncombe C, Bebchuk JD, Wendler D, et al. The quality of informed consent in a clinical research study in Thailand. IRB. 2005 Jan-Feb;27(1):9–17.

    Not in our library10.2307/3563866

  36. 36.

    Pace C, Talisuna A, Wendler D, Maiso F, Wabwire-Mangen F, Bakyaita N, et al. Quality of parental consent in a Ugandan malaria study. Am J Public Health. 2005 7;95(7):1184–9.

    Not in our library10.2105/ajph.2004.053082

  37. 37.

    ANRS1201/1202 Ditrame Plus Study Group. Obtaining informed consent from HIV-infected pregnant women, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire. AIDS. 2004 7 2;18(10):1486–8.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.aids.0000131349.22032.63

  38. 38.

    Joubert G, Steinberg H, van der Ryst E, Chikobvu P. Consent for participation in the Bloemfontein vitamin A trial: how informed and voluntary? Am J Public Health. 2003 4;93(4):582–4.

    Not in our library10.2105/ajph.93.4.582

  39. 39.

    Lynöe N, Hyder Z, Chowdhury M, Ekström L. Obtaining informed consent in Bangladesh. N Engl J Med. 2001 2 8;344(6):460–1.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejm200102083440617

  40. 40.

    Lynöe N, Näsström B, Sandlund M. Study of the quality of information given to patients participating in a clinical trial regarding chronic hemodialysis. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2004;38(6):517–20.

    Not in our library10.1080/00365590410033362

  41. 41.

    Lynöe N, Sandlund M, Dahlqvist G, Jacobsson L. Informed consent: study of quality of information given to participants in a clinical trial. BMJ. 1991 9 14;303(6803):610–3.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.303.6803.610

  42. 42.

    Lynöe N, Boman K, Andersson H, Sandlund M. Informed consent and participants’ inclination to delegate decision-making to the doctor. Acta Oncol. 2004;43(8):769.

    Not in our library10.1080/02841860410002734

  43. 43.

    Lynöe N, Sandlund M, Jacobsson L. Informed consent in two Swedish prisons: a study of quality of information and reasons for participating in a clinical trial. Med Law. 2001;20(4):515–23.

    Not in our library

  44. 44.

    Leach A, Hilton S, Greenwood BM, Manneh E, Dibba B, Wilkins A, et al. An evaluation of the informed consent procedure used during a trial of a Haemophilus influenzae type B conjugate vaccine undertaken in the Gambia, West Africa. Soc Sci Med. 1999 1;48(2):139–48.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00317-7

  45. 45.

    Pitisuttithum P, Migasena S, Laothai A, Suntharasamai P, Kumpong C, Vanichseni S. Risk behaviours and comprehension among intravenous drug users volunteered for HIV vaccine trial. J Med Assoc Thai. 1997 1;80(1):47–50.

    Not in our library

  46. 46.

    Bergenmar M, Molin C, Wilking N, Brandberg Y. Knowledge and understanding among cancer patients consenting to participate in clinical trials. Eur J Cancer. 2008 11;44(17):2627–33.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejca.2008.08.013

  47. 47.

    Knifed E, Lipsman N, Mason W, Bernstein M. Patients’ perception of the informed consent process for neurooncology clinical trials. Neuro-oncol. 2008 6;10(3):348–54.

    Not in our library10.1215/15228517-2008-007

  48. 48.

    Agrawal M, Grady C, Fairclough DL, Meropol NJ, Maynard K, Emanuel EJ. Patients’ decision-making process regarding participation in phase I oncology research. J Clin Oncol. 2006 9 20;24(27):4479–84.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2006.06.0269

  49. 49.

    Franck LS, Winter I, Oulton K. The quality of parental consent for research with children: a prospective repeated measure self-report survey. Int J Nurs Stud. 2007 5;44(4):525–33.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.03.014

  50. 50.

    Gammelgaard A, Mortensen OS, Rossel P; DANAMI-2 Investigators. Patients’ perceptions of informed consent in acute myocardial infarction research: a questionnaire based survey of the consent process in the DANAMI-2 trial. Heart. 2004 10;90(10):1124–8.

    Not in our library10.1136/hrt.2003.021931

  51. 51.

    Kodish E, Eder M, Noll RB, Ruccione K, Lange B, Angiolillo A, et al. Communication of randomization in childhood leukemia trials. JAMA. 2004 1 28;291(4):470–5.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.291.4.470

  52. 52.

    Criscione LG, Sugarman J, Sanders L, Pisetsky DS, St Clair EW. Informed consent in a clinical trial of a novel treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2003 6 15;49(3):361–7.

    Not in our library10.1002/art.11057

  53. 53.

    Kupst MJ, Patenaude AF, Walco GA, Sterling C. Clinical trials in pediatric cancer: parental perspectives on informed consent. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2003 10;25(10):787–90.

    Not in our library10.1097/00043426-200310000-00009

  54. 54.

    Pope JE, Tingey DP, Arnold JM, Hong P, Ouimet JM, Krizova A. Are subjects satisfied with the informed consent process? A survey of research participants. J Rheumatol. 2003 4;30(4):815–24.

    Not in our library

  55. 55.

    Schats R, Brilstra EH, Rinkel GJ, Algra A, Van Gijn J. Informed consent in trials for neurological emergencies: the example of subarachnoid haemorrhage. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2003 7;74(7):988–91.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.74.7.988

  56. 56.

    Simon C, Zyzanski SJ, Eder M, Raiz P, Kodish ED, Siminoff LA. Groups potentially at risk for making poorly informed decisions about entry into clinical trials for childhood cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003 6 1;21(11):2173–8.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2003.03.003

  57. 57.

    Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 2001 11 24;358(9295):1772–7.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(01)06805-2

  58. 58.

    Daugherty C, Ratain MJ, Grochowski E, Stocking C, Kodish E, Mick R, et al. Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol. 1995 5;13(5):1062–72.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.1995.13.5.1062

  59. 59.

    Daugherty CK, Banik DM, Janish L, Ratain MJ. Quantitative analysis of ethical issues in phase I trials: a survey interview of 144 advanced cancer patients. IRB. 2000 May-Jun;22(3):6–14.

    Not in our library10.2307/3564113

  60. 60.

    Hietanen P, Aro AR, Holli K, Absetz P. Information and communication in the context of a clinical trial. Eur J Cancer. 2000 10;36(16):2096–104.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0959-8049(00)00191-x

  61. 61.

    Montgomery JE, Sneyd JR. Consent to clinical trials in anaesthesia. Anaesthesia. 1998 3;53(3):227–30.

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2044.1998.00309.x

  62. 62.

    van Stuijvenberg M, Suur MH, de Vos S, Tjiang GC, Steyerberg EW, Derksen-Lubsen G, et al. Informed consent, parental awareness, and reasons for participating in a randomised controlled study. Arch Dis Child. 1998 8;79(2):120–5.

    Not in our library10.1136/adc.79.2.120

  63. 63.

    Harrison K, Vlahov D, Jones K, Charron K, Clements ML. Medical eligibility, comprehension of the consent process, and retention of injection drug users recruited for an HIV vaccine trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1995 11 1;10(3):386–90.

    Not in our library10.1097/00042560-199511000-00012

  64. 64.

    Harth SC, Thong YH. Parental perceptions and attitudes about informed consent in clinical research involving children. Soc Sci Med. 1995 6;40(11):1573–7.

    Not in our library10.1016/0277-9536(94)00412-m

  65. 65.

    Estey A, Wilkin G, Dossetor J. Are research subjects able to retain the information they are given during the consent process. Health Law Rev. 1994;3:37–41.

    Not in our library

  66. 66.

    Howard JM, DeMets D. How informed is informed consent? The BHAT experience. Control Clin Trials. 1981 12;2(4):287–303.

    Not in our library10.1016/0197-2456(81)90019-2

  67. 67.

    Griffin JM, Struve JK, Collins D, Liu A, Nelson DB, Bloomfield HE. Long term clinical trials: how much information do participants retain from the informed consent process? Contemp Clin Trials. 2006 10;27(5):441–8.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.006

  68. 68.

    Guarino P, Lamping DL, Elbourne D, Carpenter J, Peduzzi P. A brief measure of perceived understanding of informed consent in a clinical trial was validated. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 6;59(6):608–14.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.11.009

  69. 69.

    Barrett R. Quality of informed consent: measuring understanding among participants in oncology clinical trials. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2005 7;32(4):751–5.

    Not in our library10.1188/05.onf.751-755

  70. 70.

    Sugarman J, Lavori PW, Boeger M, Cain C, Edsond R, Morrison V, et al. Evaluating the quality of informed consent. Clin Trials. 2005;2(1):34–41.

    Not in our library10.1191/1740774505cn066oa

  71. 71.

    Simon CM, Siminoff LA, Kodish ED, Burant C. Comparison of the informed consent process for randomized clinical trials in pediatric and adult oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2004 7 1;22(13):2708–17.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2004.10.034

  72. 72.

    Pentz RD, Flamm AL, Sugarman J, Cohen MZ, Daniel Ayers G, Herbst RS, et al. Study of the media’s potential influence on prospective research participants’ understanding of and motivations for participation in a high-profile phase I trial. J Clin Oncol. 2002 9 15;20(18):3785–91.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2002.04.084

  73. 73.

    Cohen L, de Moor C, Amato RJ. The association between treatment-specific optimism and depressive symptomatology in patients enrolled in a phase I cancer clinical trial. Cancer. 2001 5 15;91(10):1949–55.

    Not in our library10.1002/1097-0142(20010515)91:10<1949::aid-cncr1218>3.0.co;2-a

  74. 74.

    Fortney JA. Assessing recall and understanding of informed consent in a contraceptive clinical trial. Stud Fam Plann. 1999 12;30(4):339–46.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1728-4465.1999.t01-5-.x

  75. 75.

    Hutchison C. Phase I trials in cancer patients: participants’ perceptions. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 1998 3;7(1):15–22.

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2354.1998.00062.x

  76. 76.

    Négrier S, Lanier-Demma F, Lacroix-Kante V, Chauvin F, Saltel P, Mercatello A, et al. Evaluation of the informed consent procedure in cancer patients candidate to immunotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 1995 9;31A(10):1650–2.

    Not in our library10.1016/0959-8049(95)00329-h

  77. 77.

    Tankanow RM, Sweet BV, Weiskopf JA. Patients’ perceived understanding of informed consent in investigational drug studies. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1992 3;49(3):633–5.

    Not in our library

  78. 78.

    Rodenhuis S, van den Heuvel WJ, Annyas AA, Koops HS, Sleijfer DT, Mulder NH. Patient motivation and informed consent in a phase I study of an anticancer agent. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol. 1984 4;20(4):457–62.

    Not in our library10.1016/0277-5379(84)90229-3

  79. 79.

    Penman DT, Holland JC, Bahna GF, Morrow G, Schmale AH, Derogatis LR, et al. Informed consent for investigational chemotherapy: patients’ and physicians’ perceptions. J Clin Oncol. 1984 7;2(7):849–55.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.1984.2.7.849

  80. 80.

    Goodman NW, Cooper GM, Malins AF, Prys-Roberts C. The validity of informed consent in a clinical study. Anaesthesia. 1984 9;39(9):911–6.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2044.1984.tb06582.x

  81. 81.

    Riecken HW, Ravich R. Informed consent to biomedical research in Veterans Administration Hospitals. JAMA. 1982 7 16;248(3):344–8.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.1982.03330030050025

  82. 82.

    Bergler JH, Pennington AC, Metcalfe M, Freis ED. Informed consent: how much does the patient understand? Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1980 4;27(4):435–40.

    Not in our library10.1038/clpt.1980.60

  83. 83.

    Ritsuko A, Noda K, Etsuko S, Etsuko M, Tomoko S, Midori N, et al. [Survey of participants to clinical trial in Fukuoka university hospital: relationship between the participant's understanding of informed consent and their feeling of unease for clinical trials]. Fukuoka Daigaku Igaku Kiyō. 2006;33(1):25–9. Japanese.

    Not in our library

  84. 84.

    Paediatric European Network for Treatment of AIDS. Parents’ attitudes to their HIV-infected children being enrolled into a placebo-controlled trial: the PENTA 1 trial. HIV Med. 1999 10;1(1):25–31.

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1468-1293.1999.00005.x

  85. 85.

    Ballard HO, Shook LA, Desai NS, Anand KJ. Neonatal research and the validity of informed consent obtained in the perinatal period. J Perinatol. 2004 7;24(7):409–15.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.jp.7211142

  86. 86.

    Bertoli AM, Strusberg I, Fierro GA, Ramos M, Strusberg AM. Lack of correlation between satisfaction and knowledge in clinical trials participants: a pilot study. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007 11;28(6):730–6.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cct.2007.04.005

  87. 87.

    Burgess E, Singhal N, Amin H, McMillan DD, Devrome H. Consent for clinical research in the neonatal intensive care unit: a retrospective survey and a prospective study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2003 7;88(4):F280–5, discussion F285–6.

    Not in our library10.1136/fn.88.4.f280

  88. 88.

    Chaisson LH, Kass NE, Chengeta B, Mathebula U, Samandari T. Repeated assessments of informed consent comprehension among HIV-infected participants of a three-year clinical trial in Botswana. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(10):e22696.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0022696

  89. 89.

    Chappuy H, Baruchel A, Leverger G, Oudot C, Brethon B, Haouy S, et al. Parental comprehension and satisfaction in informed consent in paediatric clinical trials: a prospective study on childhood leukaemia. Arch Dis Child. 2010 10;95(10):800–4.

    Not in our library10.1136/adc.2009.180695

  90. 90.

    Chappuy H, Bouazza N, Minard-Colin V, Patte C, Brugières L, Landman-Parker J, et al. Parental comprehension of the benefits/risks of first-line randomised clinical trials in children with solid tumours: a two-stage cross-sectional interview study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(5):e002733.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002733

  91. 91.

    Chappuy H, Doz F, Blanche S, Gentet JC, Pons G, Tréluyer JM. Parental consent in paediatric clinical research. Arch Dis Child. 2006 2;91(2):112–6.

    Not in our library10.1136/adc.2005.076141

  92. 92.

    Chappuy H, Doz F, Blanche S, Gentet JC, Tréluyer JM. Children’s views on their involvement in clinical research. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2008 5;50(5):1043–6.

    Not in our library10.1002/pbc.21359

  93. 93.

    Chenaud C, Merlani P, Luyasu S, Ricou B. Informed consent for research obtained during the intensive care unit stay. Crit Care. 2006;10(6):R170.

    Not in our library10.1186/cc5120

  94. 94.

    Chu SH, Jeong SH, Kim EJ, Park MS, Park K, Nam M, et al. The views of patients and healthy volunteers on participation in clinical trials: an exploratory survey study. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012 7;33(4):611–9.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cct.2012.02.018

  95. 95.

    Constantinou M, Jhanji V, Chiang PP, Lamoureux EL, Rees G, Vajpayee RB. Determinants of informed consent in a cataract surgery clinical trial: why patients participate. Can J Ophthalmol. 2012 4;47(2):118–23.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jcjo.2012.01.006

  96. 96.

    Cousino MK, Zyzanski SJ, Yamokoski AD, Hazen RA, Baker JN, Noll RB, et al. Communicating and understanding the purpose of pediatric phase I cancer trials. J Clin Oncol. 2012 12 10;30(35):4367–72.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2012.42.3004

  97. 97.

    Durand-Zaleski IS, Alberti C, Durieux P, Duval X, Gottot S, Ravaud P, et al. Informed consent in clinical research in France: assessment and factors associated with therapeutic misconception. J Med Ethics. 2008 9;34(9):e16.

    Not in our library10.1136/jme.2007.023473

  98. 98.

    Eiser C, Davies H, Jenney M, Glaser A. Mothers’ attitudes to the randomized controlled trial (RCT): the case of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) in children. Child Care Health Dev. 2005 9;31(5):517–23.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2214.2005.00538.x

  99. 99.

    Featherstone K, Donovan JL. Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients’ perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 1998 10 31;317(7167):1177–80.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1177

  100. 100.

    Hazen RA, Drotar D, Kodish E. The role of the consent document in informed consent for pediatric leukemia trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007 7;28(4):401–8.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cct.2006.10.011

  101. 101.

    Hereu P, Pérez E, Fuentes I, Vidal X, Suñé P, Arnau JM. Consent in clinical trials: what do patients know? Contemp Clin Trials. 2010 9;31(5):443–6.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cct.2010.05.004

  102. 102.

    Hofmeijer J, Amelink GJ, den Hertog HM, Algra A, Kappelle LJ, van der Worp HB, et al.; PAIS investigators. Appreciation of the informed consent procedure in a randomised trial of decompressive surgery for space occupying hemispheric infarction. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007 10;78(10):1124–8.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.2006.110726

  103. 103.

    Itoh K, Sasaki Y, Fujii H, Ohtsu T, Wakita H, Igarashi T, et al. Patients in phase I trials of anti-cancer agents in Japan: motivation, comprehension and expectations. Br J Cancer. 1997;76(1):107–13.

    Not in our library10.1038/bjc.1997.344

  104. 104.
    Reasons for accepting or declining to participate in randomized clinical trials for cancer therapy · 2000
    No notice
  105. 105.

    Kass NE, Maman S, Atkinson J. Motivations, understanding, and voluntariness in international randomized trials. IRB. 2005 Nov-Dec;27(6):1–8.

    Not in our library10.2307/3563534

  106. 106.

    Kenyon S, Dixon-Woods M, Jackson CJ, Windridge K, Pitchforth E. Participating in a trial in a critical situation: a qualitative study in pregnancy. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006 4;15(2):98–101.

    Not in our library10.1136/qshc.2005.015636

  107. 107.

    Kiguba R, Kutyabami P, Kiwuwa S, Katabira E, Sewankambo NK. Assessing the quality of informed consent in a resource-limited setting: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Ethics. 2012;13(1):21.

    Not in our library10.1186/1472-6939-13-21

  108. 108.

    Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS, Grisso T, Renaud M. Therapeutic misconception and the appreciation of risks in clinical trials. Soc Sci Med. 2004 5;58(9):1689–97.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00338-1

  109. 109.

    Leroy T, Christophe V, Penel N, Antoine P, Clisant S. Factual understanding of randomized clinical trials: a multicenter case-control study in cancer patients. Invest New Drugs. 2011 8;29(4):700–5.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10637-009-9315-8

  110. 110.

    Levi RB, Marsick R, Drotar D, Kodish ED. Diagnosis, disclosure, and informed consent: learning from parents of children with cancer. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2000 Jan-Feb;22(1):3–12.

    Not in our library10.1097/00043426-200001000-00002

  111. 111.

    Manafa O, Lindegger G, Ijsselmuiden C. Informed consent in an antiretroviral trial in Nigeria. Indian J Med Ethics. 2007 Jan-Mar;4(1):26–30.

    Not in our library10.20529/ijme.2007.009

  112. 112.

    McNally T, Grigg J. Parents’ understanding of a randomised double-blind controlled trial. Paediatr Nurs. 2001 5;13(4):11–4.

    Not in our library10.7748/paed2001.05.13.4.11.c736

  113. 113.

    Mangset M, Førde R, Nessa J, Berge E, Wyller TB. I don’t like that, it’s tricking people too much...: acute informed consent to participation in a trial of thrombolysis for stroke. J Med Ethics. 2008 10;34(10):751–6.

    Not in our library10.1136/jme.2007.023168

  114. 114.

    Meneguin S, Zoboli EL, Domingues RZ, Nobre MR, César LA. [Informed consent as viewed by patients participating in cardiology drug trial]. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2010 1;94(1):4–9. Portuguese.

    Not in our library10.1590/s0066-782x2010000100003

  115. 115.

    Miller VA, Baker JN, Leek AC, Hizlan S, Rheingold SR, Yamokoski AD, et al. Adolescent perspectives on phase I cancer research. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2013 5;60(5):873–8.

    Not in our library10.1002/pbc.24326

  116. 116.

    Mills N, Donovan JL, Smith M, Jacoby A, Neal DE, Hamdy FC. Perceptions of equipoise are crucial to trial participation: a qualitative study of men in the ProtecT study. Control Clin Trials. 2003 6;24(3):272–82.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0197-2456(03)00020-5

  117. 117.
    Patient motivations surrounding participation in phase I and phase II clinical trials of cancer chemotherapy · 2005
    No notice
  118. 118.

    Ockene IS, Miner J, Shannon TA, Gore JM, Weiner BH, Ball SP. The consent process in the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI–phase I) trial. Clin Res. 1991 2;39(1):13–7.

    Not in our library

  119. 119.

    Petersen I, Spix C, Kaatsch P, Graf N, Janka G, Kollek R. Parental informed consent in pediatric cancer trials: a population-based survey in Germany. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2013 3;60(3):446–50.

    Not in our library10.1002/pbc.24330

  120. 120.

    Queiroz da Fonseca O, Lie RK. Comprehension of the informed consent form and general knowledge of vaccines among potential participants for an HIV vaccine trial in Brazil. Int J Pharm Med. 1999;13(5):253–60.

    Not in our library

  121. 121.

    Russell FM, Carapetis JR, Liddle H, Edwards T, Ruff TA, Devitt J. A pilot study of the quality of informed consent materials for Aboriginal participants in clinical trials. J Med Ethics. 2005 8;31(8):490–4.

    Not in our library10.1136/jme.2002.002279

  122. 122.

    Schaeffer MH, Krantz DS, Wichman A, Masur H, Reed E, Vinicky JK. The impact of disease severity on the informed consent process in clinical research. Am J Med. 1996 3;100(3):261–8.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0002-9343(97)89483-1

  123. 123.

    Coulibaly-Traoré D, Msellati P, Vidal L, Ekra CW, Dabis F. [The Ditrame (ANRS 049) clinical trial aimed at reducing the mother-child transmission of HIV in Abidjan. Participants’ understanding of the trial principles]. Presse Med. 2003 3 1;32(8):343–50. French.

    Not in our library

  124. 124.

    Ducrocq X, Taillandier L, Anxionnat R, Lacour JC, Debouverie M, Lanotte L, et al. [Ethical approach to informed consent for participation in clinical studies in acute cerebral infarct]. Presse Med. 2000 7 8-15;29(24):1335–40. French.

    Not in our library

  125. 125.

    Schutta KM, Burnett CB. Factors that influence a patient’s decision to participate in a phase I cancer clinical trial. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2000 10;27(9):1435–8.

    Not in our library

  126. 126.

    Snowdon C, Garcia J, Elbourne D. Making sense of randomization; responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial. Soc Sci Med. 1997 11;45(9):1337–55.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0277-9536(97)00063-4

  127. 127.

    Stenson BJ, Becher JC, McIntosh N. Neonatal research: the parental perspective. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2004 7;89(4):F321–4.

    Not in our library10.1136/adc.2002.021931

  128. 128.

    Unguru Y, Sill AM, Kamani N. The experiences of children enrolled in pediatric oncology research: implications for assent. Pediatrics. 2010 4;125(4):e876–83.

    Not in our library10.1542/peds.2008-3429

  129. 129.

    Yoong J, Jefford M, Mileshkin L. Patients’ understanding of clinical trials needs to be assessed in the context of understanding of overall goals of care. Support Care Cancer. 2011 8;19(8):1067–8.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00520-011-1201-1

  130. 130.

    Verheggen FW, Jonkers R, Kok G. Patients’ perceptions on informed consent and the quality of information disclosure in clinical trials. Patient Educ Couns. 1996 11;29(2):137–53.

    Not in our library10.1016/0738-3991(96)00859-2

  131. 131.

    Country and lending groups [Internet]. Washington: World Bank; 2014. Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-and-lending-groups [cited 2014 Dec 12].

    Not in our library

  132. 132.

    Idänpäänheikkilä JE. WHO guidelines for good clinical practice (GCP) for trials on pharmaceutical products: responsibilities of the investigator. Ann Med. 1994 4;26(2):89–94.

    Not in our library10.3109/07853899409147334

  133. 133.

    Moreno J, Caplan AL, Wolpe PR. Updating protections for human subjects involved in research. Project on Informed Consent, Human Research Ethics Group. JAMA. 1998 12 9;280(22):1951–8.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.280.22.1951

  134. 134.

    de Melo-Martín I, Ho A. Beyond informed consent: the therapeutic misconception and trust. J Med Ethics. 2008 3;34(3):202–5.

    Not in our library10.1136/jme.2006.019406

  135. 135.

    Bergenmar M, Molin C, Wilking N, Brandberg Y. Knowledge and understanding among cancer patients consenting to participate in clinical trials. Eur J Cancer. 2008 11;44(17):2627–33.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejca.2008.08.013

  136. 136.

    Durand-Zaleski IS, Alberti C, Durieux P, Duval X, Gottot S, Ravaud P, et al. Informed consent in clinical research in France: assessment and factors associated with therapeutic misconception. J Med Ethics. 2008 9;34(9):e16.

    Not in our library10.1136/jme.2007.023473

  137. 137.

    Ballard HO, Shook LA, Desai NS, Anand KJ. Neonatal research and the validity of informed consent obtained in the perinatal period. J Perinatol. 2004 7;24(7):409–15.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.jp.7211142

  138. 138.

    Miller FG, Joffe S. Phase 1 oncology trials and informed consent. J Med Ethics. 2013 12;39(12):761–4.

    Not in our library10.1136/medethics-2012-100832

  139. 139.

    Tamariz L, Palacio A, Robert M, Marcus EN. Improving the informed consent process for research subjects with low literacy: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2013 1;28(1):121–6.

    Not in our library10.1007/s11606-012-2133-2

  140. 140.

    Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2004 10 6;292(13):1593–601.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.292.13.1593

  141. 141.

    Hyder AA, Rattani A, Krubiner C, Bachani AM, Tran NT. Ethical review of health systems research in low- and middle-income countries: a conceptual exploration. Am J Bioeth. 2014;14(2):28–37.

    Not in our library10.1080/15265161.2013.868950

  142. 142.

    Cargan L. Doing social research. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers; 2007.

    Not in our library

  143. 143.

    Takemura Y, Sakurai Y, Yokoya S, Otaki J, Matsuoka T, Ban N, et al. Open-ended questions: are they really beneficial for gathering medical information from patients? Tohoku J Exp Med. 2005 6;206(2):151–4.

    Not in our library10.1620/tjem.206.151

  144. 144.

    Faralli C. Informed consent in medicine: ethical and juridical aspects. Milan: Salute e Società; 2013.

    Not in our library

  145. 145.

    Isles AF. Understood consent versus informed consent: a new paradigm for obtaining consent for pediatric research studies. Front Pediatr. 2013;1:38.

    Not in our library10.3389/fped.2013.00038

  146. 146.
    Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials · 2013
    No notice
  147. 147.

    Baker JN, Leek AC, Salas HS, Drotar D, Noll R, Rheingold SR, et al. Suggestions from adolescents, young adults, and parents for improving informed consent in phase 1 pediatric oncology trials. Cancer. 2013 12 1;119(23):4154–61.

    Not in our library10.1002/cncr.28335

  148. 148.

    Terranova G, Ferro M, Carpeggiani C, Recchia V, Braga L, Semelka RC, et al. Low quality and lack of clarity of current informed consent forms in cardiology: how to improve them. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012 6;5(6):649–55.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jcmg.2012.03.007

  149. 149.

    Mårtenson EK, Fägerskiöld AM. A review of children’s decision-making competence in health care. J Clin Nurs. 2008 12;17(23):3131–41.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01920.x

  150. 150.

    Kluge EH. Informed consent by children: the new reality. CMAJ. 1995 5 1;152(9):1495–7.

    Not in our library

  151. 151.

    Cox DR. Combination of data. In: Kotz S, Johnson NL, Read CB, Balakrishnan N, Vidakovic B, editors. Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. 2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2006.pp. 1074–81.

    Not in our library

  152. 152.

    Baker WL, White CM, Cappelleri JC, Kluger J, Coleman CI; Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (HOPE) Collaborative Group. Understanding heterogeneity in meta-analysis: the role of meta-regression. Int J Clin Pract. 2009 10;63(10):1426–34.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02168.x

  153. 153.
    Factors Associated with Dengue Shock Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis · 2013
    No notice
  154. 154.

    Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Rothstein HR. Reasons or excuses for avoiding meta-analysis in forest plots. BMJ. 2008 6 21;336(7658):1413–5.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.a117

Cited by papers we hold 6

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.