SynthesisArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2026
Experiences and perspectives of children and adolescents participating in pediatric clinical trials: a qualitative evidence synthesis.
Synthesis in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Use of Waivers of Guardian Permission in the United States for Pediatric Digital Health Intervention Research Since 2020: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChildren are increasingly involved in clinical trials, yet their own perspectives on participation are often overlooked in favor of parental or professional views. Understanding children’s lived experiences is essential for improving trial design and ethical practice.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis of studies exploring children’s experiences and perspectives regarding clinical trial participation. We searched PubMed, Embase, APA PsycInfo, APA PsycArticles, CINAHL, Web of Science, and three Chinese databases from inception to January 1, 2026. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Data were synthesized using the thematic synthesis method and confidence in the findings was assessed using the GRADE-CERQual approach.
resultsA total of 56 qualitative interview studies involving 2,101 children from 15 different countries were included.The synthesis identified three overarching analytic dimensions that frame the child’s participation journey: (1) Negotiating Agency within Information Asymmetry, where children strive for control despite limited understanding; (2) Relational Autonomy in the Child-Parent-Professional Triad, highlighting that children’s decision-making is deeply embedded in social relationships; and (3) The Dynamic Balance of Burden and Altruism, where children continuously weigh personal risks against altruistic benefits. These dimensions encompassed six descriptive themes: children’s understanding of trial components; requests for personal rights; influence of other people; potential benefits; potential concerns; and the trial participation experience.
conclusionsChildren’s participation in clinical trials is not a single decision but a dynamic, relational process. The findings support a shift from protecting children from research to protecting them through ethical engagement. Researchers should adopt a stance of “ethical symmetry,” treating children’s assent with the same ethical gravity as adult consent, and facilitate “relational autonomy” by supporting the child-parent-professional triad. Tailored, age-appropriate information and continuous emotional support are critical to optimizing children’s trial experiences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.