Navigating Informed Consent Requirements and Expectations in Cluster Randomized Trials: Research Ethics Board Members’ and Researchers’ Views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Informed consent is a cornerstone of ethical human research. However, as cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are increasingly popular to evaluate health service interventions, especially as health systems aspire toward the learning health system, questions abound how research teams and research ethics boards (REBs) should navigate intertwining consent and data-use considerations. Methodological and ethical questions include who constitute the participants, whose and what types of consent are necessary, and how data from people who have not consented to participation should be managed to optimize the balance of trust in the research enterprise, respect for persons, the promotion of data integrity, and the pursuit of the public good in the research arena. In this paper, we report the findings and lessons learned from a qualitative study examining how researchers and REB members consider the ethical dimensions of when data can be collected and used in CRTs in the evolving research landscape.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.901 | 0.900 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.052 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".