What is an ethical principle requiring that research participants be told enough to enable them to choose whether they wish to participate?

1. NHMRC. National statement on ethical conduct in human research (2007). Canberra: NHMRC; 2018. <https://nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/national-statement-ethical-conduct-human-research-2007-updated-2018>.

   Google Scholar 

2. Miller FG. Henry Beecher and consent to research: a critical re-examination. Perspect Biol Med. 2016;59(1):78–94.

   Article  Google Scholar 

3. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986.

   Google Scholar 

4. Sreenivasan G. Does informed consent to research require comprehension? Lancet. 2003;362:2016–8.

   Article  Google Scholar 

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

   Article  Google Scholar 

6. Edwards SJL, Lilford RJ, Thornton J, Hewison J. Informed consent for clinical trials: in search of the ‘best’ method. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47(11):1825–40.

   Article  Google Scholar 

7. Nusbaum L, Douglas B, Damus K, Paasche-Orlow M, Estrella-Luna N. Communicating risks and benefits in informed consent for research: a qualitative study. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2017;4:1–13.

   Google Scholar 

8. Nishimura A, Carey J, Erwin PJ, Tilburt JC, Murad MH, McCormick JB. Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14(28):1–15.

   Google Scholar 

9. Barton C, Tam CWM, Abbott P, Liaw ST. Ethical considerations in recruiting primary care patients to research studies. Aust Fam Physician. 2016;45(3):144–8.

   Google Scholar 

10. Guillemin M, Gillam L, Rosenthal D, Bolitho A. Resources employed by health researchers to ensure ethical research practice. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2010;5(2):21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

11. Guillemin M, Gillam L, Rosenthal D, Bolitho A. Human research ethics committees: examining their roles and practices. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2012;7(3):38–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

12. Barber B. The ethics of experimentation with human subjects. Sci Am. 1976;262(2):25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

13. Dawson L, Kass NE. Views of US researchers about informed consent in international collaborative research. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:1211–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

14. Klitzman RL. How IRBs view and make decisions about consent forms. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2013;8(1):8–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

15. Lupton M. Informed consent: can a patient ever be fully informed? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17:601–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

16. Dekking SAS, van der Graaf R, Schouten-van Meeteren AYN, Kars MC, van Delden JJM. A qualitative study into dependent relationships and voluntary informed consent for research in pediatric oncology. Paediatr Drugs. 2016;18:145–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

17. Paasche-Orlow MK, Brancati FL, Taylor HA, Jain S, Pandit A, Wolf MS. Readability of consent forms: a second look. IRB. 2013;35(4):12–9.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

19. Brody H, Miller FG. The clinician-investigator: unavoidable but manageable tension. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2003;13(4):329–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

20. King NMP, Churchill LR. Clinical research and the physician-patient relationship: the dual roles of physician and researcher. In: Singer PA, Viens AM, editors. Cambridge textbook of bioethics. England: Cambridge University Press; 2008. p. 214–21.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

21. Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

22. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New Jersey: Aldine Transaction Publishers; 1967.

    Google Scholar 

23. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. England: Sage Publications; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

24. Thomas DR. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval. 2006;27(2):237–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

25. Krauss SE. Research paradigms and meaning making: a primer. Qual Rep. 2005;10(4):758–70.

    Google Scholar 

26. Willis JW. Foundations of qualitative research: interpretive and critical approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2007. Chapter 5, Frameworks for qualitative research. p. 147–84.

    Book  Google Scholar 

27. Gray DE. Doing research in the real world. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

28. Biernacki P, Waldorf D. Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociol Methods Res. 1981;10(2):141–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

29. Palinkas LA. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2015;42(5):533–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

30. Karbwang J, Koonrungsesomboon N, Torres CE, Jimenez EB, Kaur G, Mathur R, et al. What information and the extent of information research participants need in informed consent forms: a multi-country survey. BMC Med Ethics. 2018;19:79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

31. Gillies K, Entwistle VA. Supporting positive experiences and sustained participation in clinical trials: looking beyond information provision. J Med Ethics. 2012;38:751–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

32. Entwistle VA, Carter SM, Cribb A, et al. Supporting patient autonomy: the importance of clinician-patient relationships. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25:741–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

33. Nahmias J, Grigorian A, Brakenridge S, Jawa RS, Holena DN, Agapian JV, et al. Variations in institutional review board processes and consent requirements for trauma research: an EAST multicentre survey. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2018;3:e000176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

34. Silverman H, Hull SC, Sugarman J. Variability among institutional review boards’ decisions within the context of a multicentre trial. Crit Care Med. 2001;29(2):235–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

35. Keith-Spiegel P, Koocher GP. The IRB paradox: could the protectors also encourage deceit? Ethics Behav. 2005;15(4):339–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

36. Porter KM, Danis M, Taylor HA, Cho MK, Wilfond BS. The emergence of clinical research ethics consultation: insights from a National Collaborative. Am J Bioeth. 2018;18(1):39–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Page 2

1. aPercentages > 100%, as some researchers were affiliated with more than one institute
2. bMembership of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) was not explicitly asked, only researchers who mentioned in passing that they were members of HRECs were noted