IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v61y2005i5p985-988.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Third-party informed consent in research with adolescents: The good, the bad and the ugly

Author

Listed:
  • Geluda, Katia
  • Buarque Bisaglia, Joana
  • Moreira, Vivian
  • Motta Maldonado, Beatriz
  • JLA Cunha, Antônio
  • Trajman, Anete

Abstract

Third-party informed consent for child and adolescent participation in research is a legal requirement that has been questioned by authors who argue that children over 10 are fully able to make decisions regarding this matter. The extent to which this requirement encumbers survey researches in this age range has not been fully reported. In order to understand the reasons for the inconsistent use of condoms among adolescent students in Rio de Janeiro, we designed a survey based on an anonymous self-reported questionnaire. Two informed consent terms were distributed: one for the adolescent and one for the legal representative signature. Participation was offered to all students aged 12-18 attending class at the day of the consent term distribution. Among 906 distributed legal represents consent terms, 734 (81%) were not returned. The final sample probably presented a bias of selection. Researchers must foresee third-party consent as a major encumbrance. There is a need for the definition of a range of interventions in which the adolescent might have the legal recognition of autonomy for decision about his/her voluntary participation.

Suggested Citation

  • Geluda, Katia & Buarque Bisaglia, Joana & Moreira, Vivian & Motta Maldonado, Beatriz & JLA Cunha, Antônio & Trajman, Anete, 2005. "Third-party informed consent in research with adolescents: The good, the bad and the ugly," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(5), pages 985-988, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:61:y:2005:i:5:p:985-988
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(04)00643-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:61:y:2005:i:5:p:985-988. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.