Skip to main content

Advertising Disclaimer »

Main menu

  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Open Access
    • Editorial Policies
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Blogs
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • AAP Meeting Abstracts
  • Pediatric Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health
    • More Collections...
  • AAP Policy
  • Supplements
  • Multimedia
    • Video Abstracts
    • Pediatrics On Call Podcast
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers
  • Other Publications
    • American Academy of Pediatrics

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Academy of Pediatrics

AAP Gateway

Advanced Search

AAP Logo

  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Open Access
    • Editorial Policies
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Blogs
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • AAP Meeting Abstracts
  • Pediatric Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health
    • More Collections...
  • AAP Policy
  • Supplements
  • Multimedia
    • Video Abstracts
    • Pediatrics On Call Podcast
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers

Discover Pediatric Collections on COVID-19 and Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health

American Academy of Pediatrics
Article

The Experiences of Children Enrolled in Pediatric Oncology Research: Implications for Assent

Yoram Unguru, Anne M. Sill and Naynesh Kamani
Pediatrics April 2010, 125 (4) e876-e883; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-3429
Yoram Unguru
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anne M. Sill
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Naynesh Kamani
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
Loading
Download PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most children with cancer enroll in clinical research trials. Whenever possible, children must provide their assent before enrolling in research studies. We studied what children aged 7 to 18 with cancer understand about research, their research-related treatment, and their preferences for inclusion in decision-making.

PROCEDURE: Thirty-seven face-to-face, audiorecorded interviews using a novel, semi-structured tool, the quality-of-assent instrument, were conducted. Exploratory univariate and bivariate analyses of the quantitative data elucidated patterns and trends of understanding and preferences.

RESULTS: Nineteen of the 37 children (51%) did not know or recall that their treatment was considered research, and 19 of 22 (86%) did not understand their doctor when he or she discussed the trial. More children enrolled in trials to help future children with cancer (27 of 37 [73%]), than to get better personally (22 of 37 [60%]). Irrespective of age, children with Hodgkin's disease, germ-cell tumors, and leukemia had significantly greater research awareness and appreciation than children with other cancers (P = .019 and P < .001, respectively). Although all children wanted to be involved in decision-making, 18 of 37 (49%) did not have or recall having a role in deciding to enroll in their trial, and 14 of 37 (38%) did not feel free to dissent to trial enrollment. Only 4 of 37 children (11%) discussed increased decision-making roles with parents, and only 7 of 37 (19%) discussed them with their doctors.

CONCLUSIONS: Most children have limited understanding of research despite physicians' explanations. Many children reported that they feel minimally involved in the decision to enroll in clinical trials. Tools to assist investigators ascertain that children understand what they are agreeing to when they assent to research and to determine their preferences for inclusion in research may help make assent more meaningful.

  • clinical trials
  • assent
  • decision-making
  • research ethics
  • understanding
  • preferences

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT:

Despite broad-based support for empirical studies examining children's understanding of what it means when they assent to research and their preference for research involvement, existing studies have focused primarily on healthy children using hypothetical cases and on decision-making preferences of adolescents with cancer.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS:

This report represents the first study to examine both younger and older children's understanding of the oncology research in which they are involved and their preferences for decision-making related to their illness.

Significant improvements in childhood cancer survival rates1 largely derive from greater understanding of disease and improved therapies directly linked to widespread participation by children in oncology clinical trials.2,3 Federal regulations require that, whenever possible, children affirmatively agree to participate in research, termed “assent,” before enrolling in research.4 Often overlooked in this process is ensuring that children understand the research protocol and the assent process itself.5,–,14 Although the Belmont report and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Bioethics have stipulated that investigators ascertain that adult and child research subjects comprehend the information about their research participation,6,7 federal regulations have not made this a requirement.

Despite broad-based support for empirical studies examining children's understanding of what it means to assent to research and their preference for involvement in research,5,8,15,–,23 existing studies have focused primarily on healthy children using hypothetical cases18,24,–,27 on decision-making preferences of adolescents with cancer.28,–,31 Few studies have examined children's understanding of their disease and its treatment32–33 and the extent of their desire to be included in research-related decisions. To begin to fill this gap, we developed a quality-of-assent (QuAs) instrument modeled after the quality-of-consent tool by Joffe et al34 to assess what children with cancer enrolled in therapeutic pediatric oncology research protocols understand about research, their research-related treatment, and their preferences for inclusion in decision-making about their care.

METHODS

Instrument Design

The QuAs instrument was developed after an extensive literature review that examined usage of existing questionnaires regarding the concerns of children, parents, and providers. Questions adapted from existing tools20,24,–,28,30,31,33 were selected because they were relevant to foundational aspects of assent described in the study's 2 primary aims: children's understanding of, and preference for, involvement in research. In addition, novel questions relating to each of these 2 domains were constructed. The end result was a 69-item QuAs instrument. To ensure content validity and clinical relevance, a preliminary version was reviewed by 30 pediatric hematology/oncology professionals familiar with research trial methodology and child development. The consultants' feedback was incorporated into a revised instrument. For clarity, comprehension, and acceptance, this instrument was then evaluated by a social scientist with expertise in both bioethics and survey development. To determine whether children were easily able to understand the instrument and the intent of its questions, and to enable the interviewer (Dr Unguru) to practice asking questions in a nondirective fashion, the instrument was pretested in a convenience sample of 4 patients with cancer and 4 healthy peers aged 7 to 16 years. Generally, subjects responded that questions were clear and interpreted items as intended. Where necessary, wording of specific items was simplified.

The 69-item questionnaire consisted of open- and closed-ended questions. Open-ended questions were included to facilitate a more nuanced understanding of children's views.

Interviews were private, face-to-face, and audiorecorded, and they lasted <30 minutes. Children were provided with a questionnaire identical to that used by the interviewer and followed along as each question was read aloud to them. Oral and written presentation is an established effective method for improving understanding and comprehension.35,–,39 Children responded to questions orally. On the basis of responses (ie, initial understanding), prompts were included to ensure that children comprehended each question's intent. By allowing children to answer orally, children who were unable to read, those who were poor readers, and those whose writing skills were poor were still able to participate effectively.

Five dimensions of comprehension were assessed: familiarity, knowledge, awareness, understanding, and appreciation (Table 1). Children were “familiar with research” if they recalled having heard a given research term from a list of 9 items (“study,” “research,” “protocol,” etc). Research knowledge was defined as a combination of children's responses to the 9 familiarity items and recognition that trial participation was one way to treat their disease as reflected by the question, “Before starting treatment, did your doctor meet with you to talk about the ways to treat your illness?” Research awareness reflected the children's recognition of objectives of research (eg, to benefit future children with cancer or to determine the effectiveness of a treatment) and of their own role in trial participation.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Themes Related to Children's Understanding and Preferences for Involvement in Research

Children's understanding of the nature of research was based on their responses to 6 questions relating to the components of research (comparing known to unknown interventions, randomization, risk/benefit, efficacy of treatment, generalizable knowledge, and voluntariness). Responses were then coded as correct or incorrect to reflect understanding (ie, correct response = understanding). Children then responded to 5 additional questions relating to the purpose of research: (1) know/aware of purpose; (2) define purpose; (3) correctness of definition; (4) know/aware of research goal; and (5) correctness of goal. General understanding of research was operationally defined as the sum of correct responses to these 11 questions. Appreciation of research goals was determined by the children's reason or reasons for participating in a research trial as reflected by their responses to the multiple-choice question, “Why did you decide to participate in a clinical research study?”

Children's preference for involvement in research was based on their responses to 5 domains of research-related decision-making listed in Table 1. Developmental scholars9,16,19 have established 14 years as the age of abstract reasoning and the ability to comprehend a research agenda. Consistent with this practice, age 14 was selected as the assessment point for the preference-related component of the instrument.

Sample

The study was conducted at Children's National Medical Center and approved by its institutional review board. Children were eligible if they were between the ages of 7 and 18 years at the time of cancer diagnosis and had assented to a Children's Oncology Group/Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium research protocol between January 2005 and September 2007, as evidenced by their signature.

Study Procedures

Consent and developmentally appropriate assent forms were signed after study purpose and procedures were explained and reviewed with the children's parents or guardians present, and again when the child was alone. Interviews were conducted in a private lounge before or after a routine clinic visit, on a separate day altogether, or in a child's inpatient room. Children followed along as each question was read aloud by Dr Unguru, and they responded orally. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were verified against the audiotape.

Data Analysis

Descriptive exploratory analyses of distributions, means, medians, and proportions were calculated before subjecting data to parametric statistics (t tests, χ2 test, and analysis of variance). Significant departures from distributional normality were considered for data transformation and nonparametric analyses (Wilcoxon rank test, Fisher's exact test). Research knowledge and awareness were measured by summing the children's responses to a set of 10 and a set of 7 questions (possible range of scores was 0–10 and 0–7, respectively). General understanding of research was calculated by summing correct responses to 11 questions (score range was 0–11) related to the nature and purpose of research. Higher scores indicate greater knowledge, awareness, and understanding. Children were assigned a research-appreciation score of 1 to 3, with 1 indicating less appreciation and 3 indicating greater appreciation, only if they selected from 3 of 6 possible options: “to get better,” “to help other children,” or “to help my doctor to learn about my illness.” Distributions of summation scores (familiarity, knowledge, awareness, understanding, and appreciation) were found to be normally distributed; thus, parametric analyses were used when examining these scores. Bivariate relationships were examined by using linear regression analyses while controlling for variables thought to confound relationships. Internal consistency within the summed scores was determined by calculating Cronbach's α value to assess the intraitem correlations for each “scale” included in the summed score. Gender, age, cancer diagnosis, protocol type/phase, months since diagnosis, and ongoing versus completed treatment were selected a priori to determine whether these variables had a potential confounding effect on the associations with the 5 dimensions of research comprehension. All quantitative analyses were performed in SPSS 13.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed qualitatively by identifying and developing codes for common themes in the interview transcripts. Dr Unguru coded all transcripts.

RESULTS

Respondent Characteristics

Of 62 eligible subjects, 37 children aged 7 to 19 (mean: 13.6 years) whose malignancies represented those seen in the general population participated (60% response rate). Nonrespondents did not differ from respondents with respect to clinical characteristics. Thirty-two participants completed the study as outpatients, and 5 completed it as inpatients. Table 2 provides respondent characteristics.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Respondent Characteristics (N = 37)

Internal Consistency

Postpriori scale content-validity studies revealed poor intercorrelation between items included in the summed scores: familiarity, knowledge, awareness, understanding, and appreciation. Cronbach's α value was 0.62 for all scales.

Research Familiarity

Although most children reported hearing the words “research” (87% [n = 32]) or “study” (95% [n = 35]) from their parents/doctor, 51% (n = 19) said they were not told/did not recall being told that their treatment was considered research. Table 3 lists the respondents' familiarity with research terms; 65% (n = 24) could not indicate which research term best described the type of research in which they were involved. Of the 13 children who selected a term, 54% correctly defined it.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

Children's Familiarity with Research Terminology, Research Knowledge, and Elements Comprising Awareness of Research Enrollment (N = 37)

Children's Knowledge and Awareness of Research

Table 3 lists the frequencies of children's knowledge and awareness of research. Knowledge scores ranged from 1 to 10 (mean: 5.7 [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.9–6.5]). Awareness scores ranged from 2 to 7 (mean: 4.8 [95% CI: 4.2–5.4]).

Fifteen of 37 children said that they could differentiate clinical from nonclinical research-related treatments, but of those, 80% (n = 12) did so incorrectly. Forty-one percent of the children (n = 15) said that they did not know the specific purpose of their trial. Of those who did, only 22% (5 of 23) correctly defined the purpose of their specific trial.

Children's Understanding and Appreciation of Research

Asked to indicate their understanding of trial-related information at the time they assented by choosing 1 of 3 options, 70% of the children (n = 26) responded that it was either a “little hard” or “very hard” to understand, with only a minority selecting “easy to understand.” Asked what made the information hard to understand, 86% (19 of 22) responded that they did not understand the language their doctor had used.

Although the majority of the children (89% [n = 33]) correctly answered that research seeks to further generalizable knowledge, most (73% [n = 27]) incorrectly responded that research interventions were not more risky than other interventions. Similarly, 73% (n = 27) incorrectly responded that medicines given as part of the research component of their trial were proven to be the best treatment for their illness. Mean understanding was 6.9 (95% CI: 6.1–7.8). Assessing children's appreciation of the goals of research, the 3 most common reasons children gave for deciding to participate in a trial were to (1) help other children (73% [n = 27]), (2) get better (60% [n = 22]), and (3) help their doctor to learn (43% [n = 16]). Mean appreciation was 1.7 (95% CI: 1.4–2.1; range: 0–3).

Knowledge, awareness, understanding, and appreciation were not significantly associated with gender, protocol type/phase, months since diagnosis, or ongoing versus completed treatment. Children with Hodgkin's disease (HD) and germ-cell tumors (GCTs) had greater knowledge (mean = 7.6) than children with other diagnoses (mean = 5.0; P = .003). Children with HD, central nervous system tumors, and leukemia had higher mean understanding (mean = 7.8, 7.5, and 6.8, respectively) than children with other cancers (mean = 6.0). However, when controlling for age, neither of these associations was significant (P = .38 and .22, respectively).

Children with HD, GCT, and leukemia had significantly greater awareness (mean: 5.5) and appreciation (mean: 2.2) than children with other cancers (mean: 3.6 and 1.0, respectively). These relationships remained significant when controlling for age (P = .019 and P < .001, respectively).

Asked if they felt free to dissent to study participation, 14 children (38%) said they did not. The most common reason given for still enrolling (8 of 14) was pressure from parents (3 of 8), doctors (1 of 8), or parents and doctors (4 of 8).

Decisional Priority

Most children, 54% (n = 20), responded that neither their parents nor their doctor had talked to them about making decisions related to their care (as opposed to research); 12 of 17 (71%) who were spoken to were >14 years old. Several children said that although their parents did speak to them, the message was one of exclusion from decision-making, not inclusion.

Children's Role in Deciding to Enroll in Clinical Research

Children said that their parents solicited their involvement in the enrollment decision more often than physicians (43% [n = 9] vs 10% [n = 2]). Asked who made the enrollment decision, children's most common responses were “child plus parent” (35% [n = 13]) and “child, parent, plus doctor” (38% [n = 14]). However, nearly half (49% [n = 18]) of the children reported that they had “very little,” “little,” or “no role” in actually deciding to enroll in their study. The older the child, the more likely they were to be included in the enrollment decision (P = .039). Children who stated that they had a greater role in the decision to enroll in their trial were more likely to have been spoken to by their parents and/or physician (P = .005).

Children's Preferences for Research-Related Information

Most children, 87% (n = 32), answered that it would have been helpful if someone had explained to them why research is done before they were asked to enroll in a study. Children appreciated that delaying treatment was not inconsequential, yet 53% (n = 17) still would have wanted the explanation. Three-quarters (n = 28) would have liked to speak to other children enrolled in research to help them understand what it means to be part of a study.

Children's Preferences and Perceptions

Asked if they preferred to be involved “totally,” “a little bit,” or “not at all” in decisions about their clinical and research-related care, 60% (n = 22) said they wanted total involvement in decisions (mean age: 14.5 years; range: 9–19 years); 40% (n = 15) wanted a “little involvement” (mean age: 12 years; range: 7–16 years). Children were not interested, however, in making decisions on their own. Their desire for joint decision-making was nearly universal: 97% (n = 36) wanted to include their parents in decisions, and 94% (n = 35) wanted physicians involved. Despite their desire to be included in decision-making, only 11% (n = 4) and 19% (n = 7) of the children discussed increased decision-making roles with their parents and doctors, respectively. Some were reluctant to engage their parents/physicians, because they did not think it would make a difference.

Children's Suggestions for Improving Their Role in Decision-Making

Asked what their doctor could do to improve their role in decision-making, 49% (n = 18) of the children responded, and most had several suggestions. Children's most frequent suggestion (39% [7 of 18]) was that doctors talk directly to children, not solely to parents; 33% (6 of 18) said that doctors should solicit children's concerns; 22% (4 of 18) emphasized that what doctors say should be “understandable;” and 16% (3 of 18) expected doctors not to treat them like children based solely on their age.

DISCUSSION

Enrollment in clinical research trials has been the norm for pediatric patients with cancer.40,41 Calls for ensuring research subjects' understanding have been widely enumerated. To our knowledge, this report represents the first study to examine both younger and older children's understanding of the oncology research in which they are involved and their preferences for decision-making related to their illness. Our findings show that children's understanding and knowledge of research, types of decisions made, roles in the actual decision to enroll in research studies, and physicians' willingness to broach decision-making all were age-dependent. Awareness and appreciation of research, however, were not age-dependent.

More than half of the children in our study did not know/recall that their treatment was considered clinical research, which differs only slightly from results from adult research subjects.42 Generally, children had limited understanding of research despite what they recalled of physicians' explanations. Most children recalled not understanding their doctor when he or she spoke to them about their study, and only half of the older adolescents found the information easy to understand. This finding underscores the well-acknowledged need for enhanced communication33,43 between pediatric oncologists and families to improve the assent/consent process.44

Many children stated that ultimate decisional priority resided with parents/doctors and their own voices had little influence on the important decision of whether to enroll in a clinical trial. This might explain why so few children actually spoke to parents/doctors about increasing their decision-making role. Although children preferred joint decision-making, they did not believe that the decisions of parents or physicians should be absolute. Others have reported similar findings.29,31,45 Moreover, our data support previous findings that children often enroll/remain in studies because of parent/physician pressure.46,47 Our findings suggest that parents/physicians could do more to involve children in decision-making to avoid forcing them to enroll in trials. Because there seem to be morally relevant differences for children's reasons to enroll in oncology trials (the desire to help future children with cancer and to help physicians acquire knowledge, fear of being treated differently by doctors for refusing trial participation, avoidance of physician/parental pressure to participate in trials, and fear of disappointing parents by not participating), a greater focus on children who enroll in research because their parents/doctors tell them to is needed. Perhaps these children have a better appreciation of research based on their perception of decision-making control and the limited role they have in it. If indeed this phenomenon is more pervasive, this is ethically problematic and contrary to AAP recommendations that children be included in decision-making.7

When we controlled for age, the children in our study with HD, GCT, and leukemia showed greater research awareness and appreciation than children with other cancers. One possible explanation for this may be related to outcome. As a group, overall survival rates for children with HD, GCT, and leukemia are considerably better than those for children with other cancers.1 As discussed by others,48–50 we speculate that parents/physicians are more willing to talk to these children, because they are more likely to survive than are children with other cancers. Parents/physicians may also tell these children different things about the studies of which they are a part, which might explain their greater awareness and appreciation. Although research awareness and appreciation were not associated with protocol type/phase, it is possible that the HD and GCT protocols, for example, were less complex (eg, fewer treatment modalities) and shorter in duration (lasting 2–6 months) compared with more complex protocols (some lasting as long as 31 months), which might account for these children's greater research awareness and appreciation.

There are several limitations to this study. First, our sample, although representative of the larger population of children with cancer, was small. Second, children's responses may not reflect actual beliefs but, rather, what they think investigators want them to say. Third, because interviews occurred after children assented to research enrollment, they had to recall past events, and their preferences may have changed over time, potentially affecting accuracy of responses. This is particularly true for the 5 children 2 or more years from study enrollment. Ideally, interviews should be done in “real time.”51 The semi-structured nature of our study, incorporating open-ended questions, allowed for a richer determination of children's views and minimized these negative potentialities. Fourth, similar to adult research subjects, some children conflated clinical research with clinical care and, as such, were subject to the therapeutic misconception. Fifth, the low content-validity scores (Cronbach's α ≤ 0.62 for all scales) may indicate either inconsistencies in respondents' research comprehension or the random nature by which they responded to questions. Indeed, a formal test-retest reliability analysis undertaken at the outset of survey development may have detected these inconsistencies earlier. However, on closer examination, it was clear that within-score variation was substantially diverse within cancer types, suggesting that research comprehension may be specific to cancer type and that respondents lacked a broader understanding of childhood cancer clinical research. This “negative finding” may inform development of a future survey instrument that includes domains of high consistency and validity, one that is more global and, thus, independent of cancer type. Finally, results reflect reports of children only and do not include the views of parents and physicians.

Despite recommendations to the contrary, physician-investigators often fail to assess what children understand before they assent to research enrollment. We envision that after the assent/consent conference, and before soliciting children's assent, providers would use an appropriate tool for this purpose. Instead of physician-investigators relying on their own assumptions about what children understand, such an instrument is intended as a generalizable tool for physician-investigators to clarify topics children themselves describe as poorly understood, thus equipping physician-investigators to include children as active research participants rather than as mere subjects. Such a tool would also satisfy the Belmont report and AAP's requirement that investigators ascertain comprehension, establishing that children's assent and research participation are more valid and meaningful. On the basis of our experience described herein, our next area of research will be to develop such a tool. Physicians must establish that children and parents understand their own and each other's role and responsibilities. Effective communication is a prerequisite for shared decision-making and provides a strong foundation on which to base assent.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to the children who participated in the study. We thank Ruth Faden, Gail Geller, and Jeremy Sugarman for critical review of the manuscript.

Footnotes

    • Accepted December 1, 2009.
  • Address correspondence to Yoram Unguru, MD, MS, MA, Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Herman and Walter Samuelson Children's Hospital at Sinai, 2401 W Belvedere Ave, Baltimore, MD 21215-5271. E-mail: yunguru{at}lifebridgehealth.org
  • FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

  • AAP =
    American Academy of Pediatrics •
    QuAs =
    quality of assent •
    CI =
    confidence interval •
    HD =
    Hodgkin's disease •
    GCT =
    germ-cell tumor

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Ries LAG,
    2. Eisner MP,
    3. Kosary CL,
    4. et al.
    , eds. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2002. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2005. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2002. Accessed June 1, 2008
  2. ↵
    National Cancer Institute. Supported cancer clinical trials: facts and figures about cancer clinical trials. Available at: http://nci.nih.gov/clinicaltrials/facts-and-figures#patients. Accessed June 1, 2008
  3. ↵
    1. Tejeda HA,
    2. Green SB,
    3. Trimble EL,
    4. et al
    . Representation of African-Americans, Hispanics, and whites in National Cancer Institute cancer treatment trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996; 88(12): 812–816
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    US Department of Health and Human Services. Additional protections for children involved as subjects in research. Federal Registrar; March 8 1993. 45 CFR 46. Available at: www.hhs.gov/ohrp/documents/19830308.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2008
  5. ↵
    1. Unguru Y,
    2. Coppes MJ,
    3. Kamani N
    . Rethinking pediatric assent: from requirement to ideal. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2008; 55(1); 211–222
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office: 1979
  7. ↵
    American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 1995; 95(2): 314–317
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Simar MR,
    2. Johnson VA
    . Pediatric informed consent: challenges for investigators. Appl Clin Trials. 2002: 46–56
  9. ↵
    1. Grodin MA,
    2. Glantz LH
    1. Weithorn LA,
    2. Scherer DG
    . Children's involvement in research participation decisions: psychological consideration. In: Grodin MA, Glantz LH eds. Children as Research Subjects: Science, Ethics, and Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1994: 133–79
  10. ↵
    Institute of Medicine, Committee on Clinical Research Involving Children.Ethical Conduct of Clinical Research Involving Children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004
  11. ↵
    Children's Oncology Group, Assent Task Force. Guidelines for involving children in decision-making about research participation. Available at: https://members.childrensoncologygroup.org/Disc/bioethics/default.asp.cogassentguidelines.pdf. Accessed February 5, 2007
  12. ↵
    1. Burke TM,
    2. Abramovitch R,
    3. Zlotkin S
    . Children's understanding of the risks and benefits associated with research. J Med Ethics. 2005; 31(12): 715–720
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Kon AA,
    2. Klug M
    . Methods and practices of investigators for determining participants' decisional capacity and comprehension of protocols. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2006; 1(4): 61–68
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Unguru Y
    . Children's views on their involvement in clinical research. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2008; 51(5): 716–717
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Kuther TL
    . Medical decision-making and minors: issues of consent and assent. Adolescence. 2003; 38(150): 343–358
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Kuther TL,
    2. Posada M
    . Children and adolescents' capacity to provide informed consent for participation in research. Adv Psychol Res. 2004; 32: 163–173
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Kunin H
    . Ethical issues in pediatric life-threatening illness: Dilemmas of consent, assent, and communication. Ethics Behav. 1997; 7(1): 43–57
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Broome ME,
    2. Kodish E,
    3. Geller G,
    4. Siminoff LA
    . Children in research: new perspectives and practices for informed consent. IRB. 2003; 5(suppl 25): S20–S25
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Susman EJ,
    2. Dorn LD,
    3. Fletcher JC
    . Participation in biomedical research: the consent process as viewed by children, adolescents, young adults, and physicians. J Pediatr. 1992; 121(4): 547–552
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Olechnowicz JQ,
    2. Eder M,
    3. Simon C,
    4. Zyzanski S,
    5. Kodish E
    . Assent observed: children's involvement in leukemia treatment and research discussions. Pediatrics. 2002; 109(5): 806–814
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Kon AA
    . Assent in pediatric research. Pediatrics. 2006; 117(5): 1806–1810
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Baylis F,
    2. Downie J,
    3. Kenny N
    . Children and decisionmaking in health research. IRB. 1999; 21(4): 5–10
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. King N,
    2. Cross A
    . Children as decision makers: guidelines for pediatricians. J Pediatr. 1989; 115(1): 10–16
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Geller G,
    2. Tambor ES,
    3. Bernhardt BA,
    4. Fraser G,
    5. Wissow LS
    . Informed consent for enrolling minors in genetic susceptibility research: a qualitative study of at-risk children's and parent's views about children's role in decision-making. J Adolesc Health. 2003; 32(4): 260–271
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Rossi WC,
    2. Reynolds W,
    3. Nelson RM
    . Child assent and parental permission in pediatric research. Theor Med Bioeth. 2003; 24(2): 131–148
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Bradlyn AS,
    2. Kao PM,
    3. Beale IL,
    4. Cole S
    . Pediatric oncology professionals' perceptions of information needs of adolescent patients with cancer. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2004; 21(6): 335–342
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Angst DB,
    2. Deatrick JA
    . Involvement in health care decisions: parents and children with chronic illness. J Family Nurs. 1996; 2: 174–194
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. ↵
    1. Pfefferbaum B,
    2. Levenson P
    . Adolescent cancer patient and physician response to a questionnaire on patient concerns. Am J Psychiatry. 1982; 139(3): 348–351
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Levenson PM,
    2. Pfefferbaum BJ,
    3. Copeland DR,
    4. Silberberg Y
    . Information preferences of cancer patients ages 11–20 years. J Adolesc Health Care. 1982; 3(1): 9–13
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Levenson PM,
    2. Pfefferbaum B,
    3. Overall JE
    . A factor analysis of the informational concerns of adolescent cancer patients. Child Health Care. 1983; 11(4): 148–153
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Dunsmore J,
    2. Quine S
    . Information, support, and decision-making needs and preferences of adolescents with cancer: implications for health professionals. J Psychosoc Oncol. 1995; 13(4): 39–56
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    1. Susman EJ,
    2. Hersh SP,
    3. Nannis ED,
    4. et al
    . Conceptions of cancer: the perspectives of child and adolescent patients and their families. J Pediatr Psychol. 1982; 7(3): 253–261
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Broome ME,
    2. Richards DJ
    . The influence of relationships on children's and adolescents' participation in research. Nurs Res. 2003; 52(3); 191–197
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Joffe S,
    2. Cook F,
    3. Cleary PD,
    4. Clark JW,
    5. Weeks JC
    . Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001; 93(2): 139–147
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Simes RJ,
    2. Tattersall MH,
    3. Coates AS,
    4. et al
    . Randomized comparison of procedures for obtaining informed consent in clinical trials of treatment for cancer. BMJ. 1986; 293(6554): 1065–1068
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Dunn LB,
    2. Jeste DV
    . Enhancing informed consent for research and treatment. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001; 24(6): 595–607
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Sugarman J,
    2. McCrory DC,
    3. Powell D,
    4. et al
    . Empirical research on informed consent: an annotated bibliography. Hastings Cent Rep. 1999; 29(1): S1–S42
    OpenUrlPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Wirshing DA,
    2. Wirshing WC,
    3. Marder SR,
    4. et al
    . Informed consent: Assessment of comprehension. Am J Psychiatry. 1998; 155(11): 1508–1511
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Tait AR,
    2. Voepel-Lewis T,
    3. Shobba M
    . Do they understand? (part II): assent of children participating in clinical anesthesia and surgery research. Anesthesiology. 2003; 98(3): 609–614
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Meinkoff J,
    2. Richards EP
    . What the Doctor Didn't Say: The Hidden Truth About Medical Research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2006: 239–249
  41. ↵
    1. Berg SL
    . Ethical challenges in cancer research in children. Oncologist. 2007; 12(11): 1336–1343
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Sugarman J,
    2. Kass NE,
    3. Goodman SN,
    4. Perentesis P,
    5. Fernandes P,
    6. Faden RR
    . What patients say about medical research. IRB. 1998; 20(4): 1–7
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Simon C,
    2. Eder M,
    3. Raiz P,
    4. Zyzanski S,
    5. Pentz R,
    6. Kodish E
    . Informed consent for pediatric leukemia research: clinician perspectives. Cancer. 2001; 92(3): 691–700
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Broome ME
    . Consent (assent) for research with pediatric patients. Semin Oncol Nurs. 1999; 15(2): 96–103
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Snethen JA,
    2. Broome ME,
    3. Knafl K,
    4. Deatrick JA,
    5. Angst DB
    . Family patterns of decision-making in pediatric clinical trials. Res Nurs Health. 2006; 29(3): 223–232
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Ondrusek N,
    2. Abramovitch R,
    3. Pencharz P
    . Empirical examination of the ability of children to consent to clinical research. J Med Ethics. 1998; 24(3): 158–165
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    1. Scherer David
    . The capacities of minors to exercise voluntariness in medical treatment decisions. Law Hum Behav. 1991; 15(4): 431–449
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Kodish Eric
    1. Bluebond-Langer M,
    2. DeCicco A,
    3. Belsco J
    . Involving children with life-shortening illnesses in decisions about participation in clinical research: a proposal for shuttle diplomacy and negotiation. In: Kodish Eric ed. Ethics and Research With Children: A Case-Based Approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2005
  49. ↵
    Bluebond-Langer, Myra. The Private Worlds of Dying Children. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1978
  50. ↵
    1. Erlen JA
    . The child's choice: an essential component in treatment decisions. Child Health Care. 1987; 15(3): 156–160
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Sugarman J,
    2. Lavori LW,
    3. Boeger M,
    4. et al
    . Evaluating the quality of informed consent. Clin Trials. 2005; 2(1): 34–41
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  • Copyright © 2010 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
PreviousNext
Back to top

Advertising Disclaimer »

In this issue

Pediatrics
Vol. 125, Issue 4
1 Apr 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
View this article with LENS
PreviousNext
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Academy of Pediatrics.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Experiences of Children Enrolled in Pediatric Oncology Research: Implications for Assent
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Academy of Pediatrics
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Academy of Pediatrics web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Request Permissions
Article Alerts
Log in
You will be redirected to aap.org to login or to create your account.
Or Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
The Experiences of Children Enrolled in Pediatric Oncology Research: Implications for Assent
Yoram Unguru, Anne M. Sill, Naynesh Kamani
Pediatrics Apr 2010, 125 (4) e876-e883; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2008-3429

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The Experiences of Children Enrolled in Pediatric Oncology Research: Implications for Assent
Yoram Unguru, Anne M. Sill, Naynesh Kamani
Pediatrics Apr 2010, 125 (4) e876-e883; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2008-3429
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Print
Download PDF
Insight Alerts
  • Table of Contents

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Parents and childrens comprehension and decision in a paediatric early phase oncology trial: a prospective study
  • Perspectives of adolescents on decision making about participation in a biobank study: a pilot study
  • Psychosocial Barriers and Facilitators to Clinical Trial Enrollment and Adherence for Adolescents With Cancer
  • Views of Adolescents and Parents on Pediatric Research Without the Potential for Clinical Benefit
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Uncertainty at the Limits of Viability: A Qualitative Study of Antenatal Consultations
  • Evaluation of an Emergency Department High-risk Bruising Screening Protocol
  • Time to First Onset of Chest Binding–Related Symptoms in Transgender Youth
Show more 20

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Medical Education
    • Research Methods & Statistics
    • Medical Education
  • Journal Info
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Policies
  • Overview
  • Licensing Information
  • Authors/Reviewers
  • Author Guidelines
  • Submit My Manuscript
  • Open Access
  • Reviewer Guidelines
  • Librarians
  • Institutional Subscriptions
  • Usage Stats
  • Support
  • Contact Us
  • Subscribe
  • Resources
  • Media Kit
  • About
  • International Access
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Statement
  • FAQ
  • AAP.org
  • shopAAP
  • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Instagram
  • Visit American Academy of Pediatrics on Facebook
  • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Twitter
  • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Youtube
  • RSS
American Academy of Pediatrics

© 2021 American Academy of Pediatrics