Dataset Information

Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomised trials: review of random sample of published trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To investigate the extent to which authors of cluster randomised trials adhered to two basic requirements of the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' uniform requirements for manuscripts (namely, reporting of research ethics review and informed consent), to determine whether the adequacy of reporting has improved over time, and to identify characteristics of cluster randomised trials associated with reporting of ethics practices.

Design

Review of a random sample of published cluster randomised trials from an electronic search in Medline.

Setting

Cluster randomised trials in health research published in English language journals from 2000 to 2008. Study sample 300 cluster randomised trials published in 150 journals.

Results

77 (26%, 95% confidence interval 21% to 31%) trials failed to report ethics review. The proportion reporting ethics review increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report ethics review than were trials that used routine data sources only (79% (n=151) v 55% (23); P=0.008). Trials that accounted for clustering in the design and analysis were more likely to report ethics review. The median impact factor of the journal of publication was higher for trials that reported ethics review (3.4 v 2.3; P<0.001). 93 (31%, 26% to 36%) trials failed to report consent. Reporting of consent increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with interventions targeting participants at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were trials with interventions targeting the cluster level (87% (90) v 48% (41); P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were those that used routine data sources only (78% (146) v 29% (11); P<0.001).

Conclusions

Reporting of research ethics protections in cluster randomised trials is inadequate. In addition to research ethics approval, authors should report whether informed consent was sought, from whom consent was sought, and what consent was for.

SUBMITTER: Taljaard M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3092521 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe research shows a growing trend in using an electronic platform to supplement or replace traditional paper-based informed consent processes. Instead of the traditionally written informed consent document, electronic informed consent (eConsent) may be used to assess the research subject's comprehension of the information presented. By doing so, respect for persons as one of the research ethical principles can be upheld. Furthermore, these electronic methods may reduce potential airborne infection exposures, particularly during the pandemic, thereby adhering to the beneficence and nonmaleficence principle. This scoping review aims to identify the ethics related criteria that have been included in electronic informed consent processes and to synthesize and map these criteria to research ethics principles, in order to identify the gaps, if any, in current electronic informed consent processes.MethodsThe search was performed based on internet search and three main databases: PubMed, SCOPUS and EBSCO. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation guideline was used to report this work.ResultsOf 34 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 242 essential original constructs were collated, and 7 concepts were derived. Digital content showed the highest percentage of collated original constructs (27%, n = 65) followed by accessibility (24%, n = 56), comprehension engagement (18%, n = 43), autonomy (14%, n = 34), confidentiality (11%, n = 25), language (5%, n = 13), and parental consent (1%, n = 2). Twenty-five new items were synthesized for eConsent criteria which may provide guidance for ethical review of research involving eConsent.ConclusionThe current study adds significant value to the corpus of knowledge in research ethics by providing ethical criteria on electronic informed consent based on evidence-based data. The new synthesized items in the criteria can be readily used as an initial guide by the IRB/REC members during a review process on electronic informed consent and useful to the future preparation of a checklist.

Project description:BackgroundApproval of the research proposal by an ethical review committee from both sponsoring and host countries is a generally agreed requirement in externally sponsored research.However, capacity for ethics review is not universal. Aim of this study was to identify opinions and views of the members serving in ethical review and ethics committees in Sri Lanka on informed consent, essential components in the information leaflet and the consent form.MethodsWe obtained ethical approval from UK and Sri Lanka. A series of consensus generation meetings on the protocol were conducted. A task oriented interview guide was developed. The interview was based on open-ended questionnaire. Then the participants were given a WHO checklist on informed consent and requested to rate the items on a three point scale ranging from extremely important to not important.ResultsTwenty-nine members from ethics committees participated. Majority of participants (23), believed a copy of the information leaflet and consent form, should accompany research proposal. Opinions about the items that should be included in the information leaflets varied. Participants identified 18 criteria as requirements in the information leaflet and 19 for the consent form. The majority, 20 (69%), believed that all research need ethical approval but identified limited human resource, time and inadequate capacity as constraints. Fifteen (52%) believed that written consent is not required for all research. Verbal consent emerged as an alternative to written consent. The majority of participants rated all components of the WHO checklist as important.ConclusionThe number of themes generated for the consent form (N = 18) is as many as for the information leaflet (N = 19) and had several overlaps. This suggests that the consent form should be itemized to reflect the contents covered in the information leaflet. The participants' opinion on components of the information leaflets and consent forms proved to be similar with WHO checklist on informed consent.

Project description:IntroductionThe subjective assessment of the adequacy of informed consent for clinical trials, and the potential difficulties associated with it, has led several studies to develop objective measures of informed consent for clinical trials. These objective measures of informed consent are often specific to a particular population or clinical condition and largely focus on understanding of (some or all of) the key elements of informed consent. Many of the developed tools are study-specific, but some validated measures exist. Of these validated measures, those which are reported by participants are of particular interest. Whether these objective tools conceptualize and measure informed consent in the same way is not known. As such, it is not clear whether meta-analyzing data from studies reporting different tools is worthwhile. The aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise the evidence on the overall conceptualisation and item content of validated patient reported measures of informed consent for clinical trials, and to identify core domains of potential importance for informed consent.MethodsA systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify relevant articles that described the development, and/or validation, of patient-reported measures of adequacy of informed consent for randomised controlled trials. Data was synthesised by classifying the items identified into domains and sub-domains which were determined by the nomenclature reported in included studies. Both for descriptions of included studies and of the instruments reported in those studies, descriptive statistics were used to describe general information and instrument detail. A narrative synthesis of the instruments and their inter-related domains and subdomains was conducted to identify areas of both convergence and divergence.ResultsThe search identified 8193 citations. After screening titles and abstracts, 29 full text articles were retrieved for further assessment. Of these 29, 14 complied with our pre-specified inclusion criteria with 15 not being eligible. Of the 14 instruments, three explicitly reported a theoretical or conceptual framework underpinning their development, a further three implicitly referred to the 'conceptual dimensions of informed consent' or 'principles of research ethics' as informing their development and eight reported no guiding theoretical framework. Only three of the 14 studies reported patient or public involvement in the development of the tool. One hundred and seventy nine items were included across the 14 instruments. The primary focus of the instruments was on understanding. Five core domains were identified which included: Autonomy; Consequences; Expectations; Purpose; and Individualisation. There was substantial variability in the coverage of different domains across measures.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated the variability in the theoretical underpinning, development and domain coverage of existing patient-reported measures of informed consent for clinical trials. The conceptualisation of informed consent could benefit from being extended from a narrow focus on understanding to include broader considerations of decision-making. Meaningful involvement of potential trial participants during development of measures critical for tool relevance is also lacking. The identification of the key domains relevant to all stakeholders which could be measured to assess the informed consent process for clinical trials is needed.

Project description:Importance. Oncology trials often entail high-stakes interventions where potential for morbidity and fatal side effects, and for life-prolongation or cure, intensify bioethical issues surrounding informed consent. These challenges are compounded in multistage randomized trials, which are prevalent in oncology. Objective. We sought to elucidate the major barriers to informed consent in high-stakes oncology trials in general and the best consent practices for multistage randomized trials. Evidence Review. We queried PubMed for original studies published from January 1, 1990, to April 5, 2018, that focused on readability, quality, complexity or length of consent documents, motivation and sickness level of participants, or interventions and enhancements that influence informed consent for high-stakes oncologic interventions. Exclusion criteria included articles focused on populations outside industrialized countries, minors or other vulnerable populations, physician preferences, cancer screening and prevention, or recruitment strategies. Additional articles were identified through comprehensive bibliographic review. Findings. Twenty-seven articles were retained; 19 enrolled participants and 8 examined samples of consent documents. Methodologic quality was variable. This body of literature identified certain challenges that can be readily remedied. For example, the average length of the consent forms has increased 10-fold from 1987 to 2010, and patient understanding was shown to be inversely proportional to page count; shortening forms, or providing a concise summary as mandated by the revised Common Rule, might help. However, barriers to understanding that stem from deeply ingrained and flawed sociocultural perceptions of medical research seem more difficult to surmount. Although no studies specifically addressed problems posed by multiple sequential randomizations (such as change in risk-benefit ratio due to time-varying treatment responses or organ toxicities), the findings are likely applicable and especially relevant in that context. Concrete suggestions for improvement are proposed.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the impact of the 2004 extension of the CONSORT guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality of cluster randomised trials.DesignMethodological review of 300 randomly sampled cluster randomised trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted 14 criteria related to quality of reporting and four methodological criteria specific to cluster randomised trials. We compared manuscripts published before CONSORT (2000-4) with those published after CONSORT (2005-8). We also investigated differences by journal impact factor, type of journal, and trial setting.Data sourcesA validated Medline search strategy. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Cluster randomised trials published in English language journals, 2000-8.ResultsThere were significant improvements in five of 14 reporting criteria: identification as cluster randomised; justification for cluster randomisation; reporting whether outcome assessments were blind; reporting the number of clusters randomised; and reporting the number of clusters lost to follow-up. No significant improvements were found in adherence to methodological criteria. Trials conducted in clinical rather than non-clinical settings and studies published in medical journals with higher impact factor or general medical journals were more likely to adhere to recommended reporting and methodological criteria overall, but there was no evidence that improvements after publication of the CONSORT extension for cluster trials were more likely in trials conducted in clinical settings nor in trials published in either general medical journals or in higher impact factor journals.ConclusionThe quality of reporting of cluster randomised trials improved in only a few aspects since the publication of the extension of CONSORT for cluster randomised trials, and no improvements at all were observed in essential methodological features. Overall, the adherence to reporting and methodological guidelines for cluster randomised trials remains suboptimal, and further efforts are needed to improve both reporting and methodology.

Project description:BackgroundThe requirement to obtain written informed consent may undermine the potential of pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) to improve evidence-based care. This requirement could compromise trials statistical power or even force it to close them down prematurely. However, recent data from the U.S. and Spain suggest that a majority of the public endorses written consent for low-risk pRCTs. The present manuscript assesses whether this view is shared by patients.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional, probability-based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design, assessing support for written informed consent versus verbal consent or general notification for two low-risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing 2 drugs with similar risk/benefit profiles and the other comparing the same drug being taken in the morning or at night. This web-based survey was conducted in May 2016. Two-thousand and eight adults who were representative of the Spanish population participated in the survey (response rate: 61%). Of these 2008 respondents, 338 indicated that they had been diagnosed with hypertension and were being treated with prescription medicines for this condition at the time of responding to the survey. The primary outcome measures were respondents' personal preference and recommendation to a research ethics committee regarding the use of written informed consent versus verbal consent or general notification.ResultsOverall, 74% of the 338 patient respondents endorsed written consent. In both scenarios, general notification received significantly more support (30.6%-44.7%) than verbal consent (13.3%-17.6%). 43% of respondents preferred and/or recommended general notification rather than written consent.ConclusionsAs in the survey of the general public, more patients endorsed written consent than the alternative option. However, two factors suggest that a different approach to written consent should be investigated for low-risk pRCTs: a) a substantial minority of respondents supported general notification, b) data from the US have shown that most patients who prefer written consent are willing to forego it if obtaining written consent makes the trial too difficult to be conducted; and c) 2016 CIOMS guidelines endorse waivers of consent when the trial fulfills specific conditions. Surveys in other EU countries are needed to assess what patients believe towards pRCTs. If similar results to that reported in this study are found, it is foreseeable that with educational efforts, general notification could be an acceptable and widespread approach to the conduct of low-risk pRCTs.