↓ Skip to main content

A survey of study participants’ understanding of informed consent to participate in a randomised controlled trial of acupuncture

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
A survey of study participants’ understanding of informed consent to participate in a randomised controlled trial of acupuncture
Published in
BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12906-015-0975-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline A. Smith, Sarah Fogarty

Abstract

It is important that potential study participants are appropriately informed and understand what is involved with their research participation. A few studies have examined study participants' understanding of the informed consent process and the adequacy of the information they received when agreeing to participate in a randomised controlled trial. Deficiencies in the consent process have been found. This topic remains an under researched area of acupuncture research. The aim of this study was to examine participants' understanding of their informed consent and the adequacy of the information presented when agreeing to participate in a randomised controlled trial of acupuncture. All women who participated in a randomised controlled trial over an 11 month period were invited to participate in a survey. An anonymous self-completion questionnaire was designed and covered participants' understanding of informed consent in the clinical trial, their views of the information provided, the opportunity to ask questions, the use of sham acupuncture, their recall of study visits and processes for withdrawal, and their reason for participating in the trial. A response rate of 59 % was obtained. Over 90 % of subjects indicated there was plenty of opportunity to discuss the study prior to giving consent, and 89 % indicated that questions asked were answered to their satisfaction. The majority of women indicated the amount of information describing acupuncture was about right, however 24 % would have liked more. Information describing sham acupuncture was not considered adequate by 48 % of women, and 35 % would have liked more information, 30 % could not recall why, or were uncertain why a sham group was used. Participants indicated less understanding of the information relating to payment if they became ill due to study participation, risks and discomforts from the study interventions, which of the procedures were experimental and for how long they would be involved in the study. Trial participants' understanding of informed consent was overall satisfactory but highlighted some areas of deficiency. Future studies could consider use of supplementary material such as Q and A fact sheets.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Student > Bachelor 3 16%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 16%
Psychology 1 5%
Philosophy 1 5%
Unknown 6 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 February 2016.
All research outputs
#3,109,044
of 7,089,314 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#842
of 1,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,812
of 306,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#32
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,089,314 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 53rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,787 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 306,963 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.