Dataset Information

Evaluation of the quality of informed consent in a vaccine field trial in a developing country setting.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Informed consent is an ethical and legal requirement for research involving human participants. However, few studies have evaluated the process, particularly in Africa. Participants in a case control study designed to identify correlates of immune protection against tuberculosis (TB) in South Africa. This study was in turn nested in a large TB vaccine efficacy trial. The aim of the study was to evaluate the quality of consent in the case control study, and to identify factors that may influence the quality of consent. Cross-sectional study conducted over a 4 month period.

Methods

Consent was obtained from parents of trial participants. These parents were asked to complete a questionnaire that contained questions about the key elements of informed consent (voluntary participation, confidentiality, the main risks and benefits, etc.). The recall (success in selecting the correct answers) and understanding (correctness of interpretation of statements presented) were measured.

Results

The majority of the 192 subjects interviewed obtained scores greater than 75% for both the recall and understanding sections. The median score for recall was 66%; interquartile range (IQR) = 55%-77% and for understanding 75% (IQR = 50%-87%). Most (79%) were aware of the risks and 64% knew that they participated voluntarily. Participants who had completed Grade 7 at school and higher were more likely (OR = 4.94; 95% CI = 1.57 - 15.55) to obtain scores greater than 75% for recall than those who did not. Participants who were consented by professional nurses who had worked for more than two years in research were also more likely (OR = 2.62; 95% CI = 1.35-5.07) to obtain such scores for recall than those who were not.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding the constraints in a developing country, in a population with low levels of literacy and education, the quality of informed consent found in this study could be considered as building blocks for establishing acceptable standards for public health research. Education level of respondents and experience of research staff taking the consent were associated with good quality informed consent.

SUBMITTER: Minnies D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2575196 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of the quality of informed consent in a vaccine field trial in a developing country setting.

Minnies Deon D Hawkridge Tony T Hanekom Willem W Ehrlich Rodney R London Leslie L Hussey Greg G

BMC medical ethics 20080930

<h4>Background</h4>Informed consent is an ethical and legal requirement for research involving human participants. However, few studies have evaluated the process, particularly in Africa. Participants in a case control study designed to identify correlates of immune protection against tuberculosis (TB) in South Africa. This study was in turn nested in a large TB vaccine efficacy trial. The aim of the study was to evaluate the quality of consent in the case control study, and to identify factors ...[more]

PMID: 18826637

Similar Datasets

Project description:Informed consent is one of the principal ethical requirements of conducting clinical research, regardless of the study setting. Breaches in the quality of the informed consent process are frequently described in reference to clinical trials conducted in developing countries, due to low levels of formal education, a lack of familiarity with biomedical research, and limited access to health services in these countries. However, few studies have directly compared the quality of the informed consent process in developed and developing countries using the same tool and in similar clinical trials. This study was conducted to compare the quality of the informed consent process of a series of clinical trials of an investigational hookworm vaccine that were performed in Brazil and the United States. A standardized questionnaire was used to assess the ethical quality of the informed consent process in a series of Phase 1 clinical trials of the Na-GST-1/Alhydrogel hookworm vaccine that were conducted in healthy adults in Brazil and the United States. In Brazil, the trial was conducted at two sites, one in the hookworm non-endemic urban area of Belo Horizonte, Minas, and one in the rural, resource-limited town of Americaninhas, both in the state of Minas Gerais; the American trial was conducted in Washington, DC. A 32-question survey was administered after the informed consent document was signed at each of the three trial sites; it assessed participants' understanding of information about the study presented in the document as well as the voluntariness of their decision to participate. 105 participants completed the questionnaire: 63 in Americaninhas, 18 in Belo Horizonte, and 24 in Washington, DC. Overall knowledge about the trial was suboptimal: the mean number of correct answers to questions about study objectives, methods, duration, rights, and potential risks and benefits, was 45.6% in Americaninhas, 65.2% in Belo Horizonte, and 59.1% in Washington, DC. Although there was no difference in the rate of correct answers between participants in Belo Horizonte and Washington, DC, there was a significant gap between participants at these two locations compared to Americaninhas (p = 0.0002 and p = 0.0001, respectively), which had a lower percentage of correct answers. Attitudes towards participating in the clinical trial also differed by site: while approximately 40% had doubts about participating in Washington, DC and Belo Horizonte, only 1.5% had concerns in Americaninhas. Finally, in Belo Horizonte and Washington, high percentages cited a desire to help others as motivation for participating, whereas in Americaninhas, the most common reason for participating was personal interest (p = 0.001). Understanding of information about a Phase 1 clinical trial of an experimental hookworm vaccine following informed consent was suboptimal, regardless of study site. Although overall there were no differences in knowledge between Brazil and the US, a lower level of understanding about the trial was seen in participants at the rural, resource-limited Brazilian site. These findings demonstrate the need for educational interventions directed at potential clinical trial participants, both in developing and developed countries, in order to improve understanding of the informed consent document.

Project description:BackgroundEthical principles obligate researchers to maximize study participants' comprehension during the informed consent process for clinical trials. A pilot evaluation of the consent process was conducted during an international clinical trial of treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis to assess the feasibility of conducting an evaluation in a larger population and to guide these future efforts.MethodsStudy staff administered an informed consent assessment tool (ICAT) to a convenience sample of trial participants, measuring comprehension of consent components as derived from the Common Rule and FDA Title 21 Part 50, and satisfaction with the process. Participating site staff completed a consent process questionnaire about consent practices at their respective sites and provided improvement recommendations. ICAT scores and corresponding practices were compared where both were completed.ResultsICATs (n = 54) were submitted from one site in Spain (n = 10), one in Uganda (n = 30), and five in the United States (n = 14). Participants were primarily male (76%), born in Africa (n = 31, 57%), and had a median age of 27 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 24-42). Median ICAT scores were 80% (IQR: 67-93) for comprehension and 89% (IQR: 78-100) for satisfaction. Ugandan participants scored higher than participants from other sites on comprehension (87% vs. 64%) and satisfaction (100% vs. 78%). Staff from 14 sites completed consent process questionnaires. Median ICAT scores for comprehension and satisfaction were higher at sites that utilized visual aids. Practice recommendations included shorter forms, simpler documents, and supplementary materials.ConclusionsParticipants achieved high levels (≥80%) of comprehension and satisfaction with their current consent processes. Higher ICAT scores at one site suggest an additional evaluation may identify approaches to improve comprehension and satisfaction in future trials. Through this pilot evaluation, complexities and challenges were identified in obtaining consent in a large, international multicenter trial and provided insights for a more robust assessment of the consent process in future trials.

Project description:IntroductionThe competence assessment to give informed consent in the legal and healthcare settings is often performed merely through clinical judgment. Given the acknowledged limited reliability of clinician-based evaluation in the mental health sector, particularly for the assessment of competence to consent, our objective was to ascertain the dependability of clinical judgment when evaluating the ability of schizophrenia patients to make choices about their health.MethodsThe potential convergence between clinical evaluation and scores from a new standardized assessment (the "Evaluation of Informed Consent to Treatment" - "EICT" scale) was therefore tested. The scale assesses four dimensions of competence, specifically how patients normally understand information relating to care (Understanding); how they evaluate the choice of treatment in terms of risk/benefit ratio (Evaluating); how they reason coherently in the decision-making process (Reasoning); and, finally, their ability to make a choice between treatment alternatives (Expressing a choice). Thirty-four outpatients with schizophrenia were evaluated for their competence to consent by five referring clinicians with different backgrounds (psychiatrist, forensic psychiatrist, geriatrician, anesthetist, and medico-legal doctor). Inter-raters variability was tested through correlation analyses between the scores obtained by the clinicians on a modified version of the Global Assessment of Functioning scale (GAF) designed specifically to subjectively assess functioning in each of the four competence dimensions. Two validated competence scales (Mac-CAT-T, SICIATRI-R), and a neuropsychological battery were also administered along with scales for evaluating neuropsychiatric symptoms severity and side effects of medication.ResultsClinical judgments of the individual specialists showed great inter-rater variability. Likewise, only weak/non-significant correlations were found between the EICT subscales and the respective clinicians-rated GAF scales. Conversely, solid correlations were found between the EICT and MacCAT-T subscales. As expected, healthy controls performed better in the ability to give informed consent to treatment, as measured by the three scales (i.e., EICT, MacCAT-T, and SICIATRI-R), and neuropsychological test performance. In the comparisons between patients who, according to the administered EICT, were able or not able to give informed consent to treatment, significant differences emerged for the Phonemic verbal fluency task (p = 0.038), Verbal judgments (p = 0.048), MacCAT-T subscales, and SICIATRI-R total score. Moreover, EICT exhibited excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.96 to 0.98 for the four subscales) while the Item Analysis, by measuring the correlation between each item of the EICT and the total score, was excellent for all items of all subscales (alphas ranging from 0.86 to 0.98).DiscussionIn conclusion, our findings highlighted that the assessment of competence exclusively through clinical judgment is not fully reliable and needs the support of standardized tools. The EICT scale could therefore be useful in assessing general competence to consent both in healthcare and legal contexts, where it might be necessary to evaluate the effective competence of patients with psychiatric disorders. Finally, this scale could serve as a valuable tool for decisions regarding whether and to what extent a patient needs support.

Project description:IntroductionEarly phase cancer clinical trials have become increasingly complicated in terms of patient selection and trial procedures-this is reflected in the increasing length of participant information sheets (PIS). Informed consent for early phase clinical trials has been contentious due to the potential ethical issues associated with performing experimental research on a terminally ill population which has exhausted standard treatment options. Empirical studies have demonstrated significant gaps in patient understanding regarding the nature and intent of these trials. This study aims to test whether enhanced informed consent for patient education can improve patient scores on a validated questionnaire testing clinical trial comprehension.Methods and analysisThis is a randomised controlled trial that will allocate patients who are eligible to participate in one of four investigator-initiated clinical trials at the Royal Marsden Drug Development Unit to either a standard arm or an experimental arm, stratified by age and educational level. The standard arm will involve the full length trial PIS, followed by electronic or paper administration of the Quality of Informed Consent Questionnaire Parts A and B (QuIC-A and QuIC-B). The experimental arm will involve the full length trial PIS, exposure to a two-page study aid and 10 online educational videos, followed by administration of the QuIC-A and QuIC-B. The primary endpoint will be the difference (using a one-sided two-sample t-test) in the QuIC-A score, which measures objective understanding, between the standard and experimental arm. Accrual target is at least 17 patients per arm to detect an 8 point difference (80% power, alpha 0.05).Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was granted by the National Health Service Health Research Authority on 15 June 2020-IRAS Project ID 277065, Protocol Number CCR5165, REC Reference 20/EE/0155. Results will be disseminated via publication in a relevant journal.Trial registration numberNCT04407676; Pre-results.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of the quality of informed consent in a vaccine field trial in a developing country setting.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Evaluation of the quality of informed consent in a vaccine field trial in a developing country setting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets