↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
209 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Participants’ understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, January 2015
DOI 10.2471/blt.14.141390
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nguyen Thanh Tam, Nguyen Tien Huy, Le Thi Bich Thoa, Nguyen Phuoc Long, Nguyen Thi Huyen Trang, Kenji Hirayama, Juntra Karbwang

Abstract

To estimate the proportion of participants in clinical trials who understand different components of informed consent. 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. 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for potential risks and side-effects, 66.2% for confidentiality, 64.1% for the availability of alternative treatment if withdrawn, 62.9% for knowing that treatments were being compared, 53.3% for placebo and 52.1% for randomization.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. 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 9%
Researcher 4 3%
Other 3 3%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Professor 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 85 72%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 89 75%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 June 2024.
All research outputs
#1,491,258
of 26,375,196 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of the World Health Organization
#417
of 3,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,491
of 363,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of the World Health Organization
#6
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,375,196 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,328 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 363,533 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.