Dataset Information

A booklet on participants' rights to improve consent for clinical research: a randomized trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Information on the rights of subjects in clinical trials has become increasingly complex and difficult to understand. This study evaluates whether a simple booklet which is relevant to all research studies improves the understanding of rights needed for subjects to provide informed consent.

Methods

21 currently used informed consent forms (ICF) from international clinical trials were separated into information related to the specific research study, and general information on participants' rights. A booklet designed to provide information on participants' rights which used simple language was developed to replace this information in current ICF's Readability of each component of ICF's and the booklet was then assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading ease score (FK). To further evaluate the booklet 282 hospital inpatients were randomised to one of three ways to present research information; a standard ICF, the booklet combined with a short ICF, or the booklet combined with a simplified ICF. Comprehension of information related to the research proposal and to participant's rights was assessed by questionnaire.

Results

Information related to participants' rights contributed an average of 44% of the words in standard ICFs, and was harder to read than information describing the clinical trial (FK 25 versus (vs.) 41 respectively, p?=?0.0003). The booklet reduced the number of words and improved FK from 25 to 42. The simplified ICF had a slightly higher FK score than the standard ICF (50 vs. 42). Comprehension assessed in inpatients was better for the booklet and short ICF 62%, (95% confidence interval (CI) 56 to 67) correct, or simplified ICF 62% (CI 58 to 68) correct compared to 52%, (CI 47 to 57) correct for the standard ICF, p?=?0.009. This was due to better understanding of questions on rights (62% vs. 49% correct, p?=?0.0008). Comprehension of study related information was similar for the simplified and standard ICF (60% vs. 64% correct, p?=?0.68).

Conclusions

A booklet provides a simple consistent approach to providing information on participant rights which is relevant to all research studies, and improves comprehension of patients who typically participate in clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Benatar JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3477160 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A booklet on participants' rights to improve consent for clinical research: a randomized trial.

Benatar Jocelyne R JR Mortimer John J Stretton Matthew M Stewart Ralph A H RA

PloS one 20121019 10

<h4>Objective</h4>Information on the rights of subjects in clinical trials has become increasingly complex and difficult to understand. This study evaluates whether a simple booklet which is relevant to all research studies improves the understanding of rights needed for subjects to provide informed consent.<h4>Methods</h4>21 currently used informed consent forms (ICF) from international clinical trials were separated into information related to the specific research study, and general informati ...[more]

PMID: 23094034

Similar Datasets

Project description:There is increasing evidence that clinical trial participants are uninformed about the trials in which they participate, raising ethical concerns regarding informed consent. The aim of this pilot study was to explore clinical trial participants' use of consent discussions and information sheets when considering participating in clinical trials research. A qualitative, interview-based pilot study was designed in order to elicit, through dialogue, details of the reasons for participants' use of, and preferences regarding, different modes of information provision. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with two different groups of patients who were participants in the Reinforcement of Closure of Stoma Site trial. The first group comprised newly-consented trial participants, who had been recruited up to 72 hours before our interview; the second group comprised patients attending a follow-up clinic 12 months after joining the trial. Thirteen participants were recruited in total: three newly-consented patients, and ten follow-up patients. The study found that participants' use of consent discussions to gain information about clinical trials was varied, and that they only minimally used information sheets after providing initial consent for the trial. Participants demonstrated varying degrees of knowledge about the trial, with some having forgotten that they were still involved in the trial. Participants reported a high level of trust in medical staff as a reason for not seeking more information about the trial. Some participants reported dissatisfaction with the timing of information provision. Some were amenable to novel ways of receiving trial information, such as web-based methods. The pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of a larger study into the provision of information to prospective clinical trial participants. The results suggest that considering alternative ways of providing information and the appropriateness of existing information provision may be acceptable to and useful for potential trial participants.

Project description:BackgroundClinical trial participants are required to sign an informed consent form (ICF). However, information is lacking on the most effective methods to convey trial relevant information prior to inviting participants to sign the ICF, being particularly pertinent in low-income countries. A previous study on Pemba Island, Tanzania, found that a verbal information session (IS) was significantly better than providing an ICF alone. However, knowledge gaps remained. Building on these findings, we investigated the effect of adding a slideshow or a theater to the IS in the informed consent procedure of an anthelminthic clinical trial.Methodology/principal findingsA total of 604 caregivers were randomized into the control group that only received an ICF (n = 150) or an ICF plus one of three intervention strategies: (i) verbal IS (n = 135), (ii) verbal IS with a slideshow (n = 174) or (iii) verbal IS followed by a theater (n = 145). All modes of information covered the same key messages. Participants' understanding was assessed using a semi-structured questionnaire. The mean score of caregivers in the control group (ICF only) was 4.41 (standard deviation = 1.47). Caregivers attending the IS alone were more knowledgeable than those in the control group (estimated difference in mean scores: 2.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.95 to 2.86, p < 0.01). However, there was no evidence of an improvement compared to the IS only when participants attended a slideshow (0.09, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.35, p = 0.68) or a theater (0.28, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.82, p = 0.32). Three out of 10 key messages remained largely misunderstood, regardless of the mode of information group.Conclusions/significanceOur study confirmed that, in this setting, an ICF alone was not sufficient to convey clinical trial-related information. An IS was beneficial, however, additional theater and slideshows did not further improve understanding. Future research should explore methods to improve communication between study teams and participants for different key messages, study types and settings.

Project description:ImportanceFew studies are available on informed consent (IC) among detained persons, even with ethics being a critical aspect of prison research. In IC research, audiovisual material seems to improve understanding and satisfaction compared with conventional paper-based material, but findings remain unclear.ObjectiveTo compare audiovisual and paper-based materials for 1-time general IC for research in prisons.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional randomized clinical trial was conducted in 2 corrections facilities in Switzerland (an adult prison and a juvenile detention center). The study was conducted from December 14, 2019, to December 2, 2020, in the adult prison and from January 15, 2020, to September 9, 2021, in the juvenile detention center. In the adult prison, study participation was offered to detained persons visiting the medical unit (response rate, 84.7%). In the juvenile detention center, all newly incarcerated adolescents were invited to participate (response rate, 98.0%).InterventionsParticipants were randomized to receive paper-based conventional material or to watch a 4-minute video. Materials included the same legal information, as required by the Swiss Federal Act on Research Involving Human Beings.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was acceptance to sign the IC form. Secondary outcomes included understanding, evaluation, and time to read or watch the IC material.ResultsThe study included 190 adults (mean [SD] age, 35.0 [11.8] years; 190 [100%] male) and 100 adolescents (mean [SD] age, 16.0 [1.1] years; 83 [83.0%] male). In the adult prison, no significant differences were found between groups in acceptance to sign the IC form (77 [81.1%] for paper-based material and 81 [85.3%] for audiovisual material; P = .39) and to evaluate it (mean [SD] correct responses, 5.09 [1.13] for paper-based material and 5.01 [1.07] for audiovisual material; P = .81). Understanding was significantly higher in the audiovisual material group (mean [SD] correct responses, 5.09 [1.84]) compared with the paper-based material group (mean [SD] correct responses, 4.61 [1.70]; P = .04). In the juvenile detention center, individuals in the audiovisual material group were more likely to sign the IC form (44 [89.8%]) than the paper-based material group (35 [68.6%], P = .006). No significant difference was found between groups for understanding and evaluation. Adults took a mean (SD) of 5 (2) minutes to read the paper material, and adolescents took 7 (3) minutes.Conclusions and relevanceGiven the small benefit of audiovisual material, these findings suggest that giving detained adults and prison health care staff a choice regarding IC material is best. For adolescents, audiovisual material should be provided. Future studies should focus on increasing understanding of the IC process.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05505058.

Project description:ObjectiveTelemedicine networks are beginning to provide an avenue for conducting emergency medicine research, but using telemedicine to recruit participants for clinical trials has not been validated. The goal of this consent study was to determine whether patient comprehension of telemedicine-enabled research informed consent is noninferior to standard face-to-face (F2F) research informed consent.MethodsA prospective, open-label randomized controlled trial was performed in a 60,000-visit Midwestern academic emergency department (ED) to test whether telemedicine-enabled research informed consent provided noninferior comprehension compared with standard consent. This study was conducted as part of a parent clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of 0.12% oral chlorhexidine gluconate in preventing hospital-acquired pneumonia among adult ED patients with expected hospital admission. Prior to being recruited into the study, potential participants were randomized in a 1:1 allocation ratio to consent by telemedicine versus standard F2F consent. Telemedicine connectivity was provided using a commercially available interface (REACH platform, Vidyo Inc.) to an emergency physician located in another part of the ED. Comprehension of research consent (primary outcome) was measured using the modified quality of informed consent (QuIC) instrument, a validated tool for measuring research informed consent comprehension. Parent trial accrual rate and qualitative survey data were secondary outcomes.ResultsA total of 131 patients were randomized (n = 64, telemedicine), and 101 QuIC surveys were completed. Comprehension of research informed consent using telemedicine was not inferior to F2F consent (QuIC scores 74.4 ± 8.1 vs. 74.4 ± 6.9 on a 100-point scale, p = 0.999). Subjective understanding of consent (p = 0.194) and parent trial study accrual rates (56% vs. 69%, p = 0.142) were similar.ConclusionTelemedicine is noninferior to F2F consent for delivering research informed consent, with no detected differences in comprehension and patient-reported understanding. This consent study will inform design of future telemedicine-enabled clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundPlacebo effects and their underpinning mechanisms are increasingly well understood. However, this is poorly communicated to participants in placebo-controlled trials. For valid informed consent, participants should be informed about the potential benefits and risks of participating in placebo-controlled trials. Existing information leaflets often fail to describe the potential benefits and adverse effects associated with placebo allocation. This study tested the effects of a new website designed to inform patients about placebo effects (The Power of Placebos, PoP). PoP was designed using qualitative methods in combination with theory- and evidence-based approaches to ensure it was engaging, informative, and addressed patients' concerns.ObjectiveThis study aimed to test the effects of PoP, compared with a control website, on people's knowledge about placebo and the ability to make an informed choice about taking part in a placebo-controlled trial.MethodsA total of 350 adults with back pain recruited from 26 general practices in Southern England participated in this Web-based study. Participants were randomly assigned to PoP (which presented scientifically accurate information about placebo effects in an engaging way) or a control website (based on existing information leaflets from UK trials). Participants self-completed Web-based pre- and postintervention questionnaire measures of knowledge about placebo effects and preintervention questionnaire measures of attitudes toward and intentions to participate in a placebo-controlled trial. The 2 primary outcomes were (1) knowledge and (2) informed choice to take part in a placebo-controlled trial (computed from knowledge, attitudes, and intentions).ResultsAfter viewing PoP, participants had significantly greater knowledge about placebos (mean 8.28 [SD 1.76]; n=158) than participants who viewed the control (mean 5.60 [SD 2.24]; n=174; F1,329=173.821; P<.001; η2=.346). Participants who viewed PoP were 3.16 times more likely than those who viewed the control to make an informed choice about placebos (χ21=36.5; P<.001).ConclusionsIn a sample of adults with back pain, PoP increased knowledge and rates of informed choice about placebos compared with a control website. PoP could be used to improve knowledge about placebo effects in back pain. After essential further development and testing in clinical trial settings, it could support informed consent in placebo-controlled trials.

Project description:BackgroundThe process of informed consent for enrolment to a clinical research study can be complex for both participants and research staff. Challenges include respecting the potential participant's autonomy and information needs while simultaneously providing adequate information to enable an informed decision. Qualitative research with small sample sizes has added to our understanding of these challenges. However, there is value in garnering the perspectives of research participants and staff across larger samples to explore the impact of contextual factors (time spent, the timing of the discussion and the setting), on the informed consent process.MethodsResearch staff and research participants from Ireland and the UK were invited to complete an anonymous survey by post or online (research participants) and online (research staff). The surveys aimed to quantify the perceptions of research participants and staff regarding some contextual factors about the process of informed consent. The survey, which contained 14 and 16 multiple choice questions for research participants and staff respectively, was analysed using descriptive statistics. Both surveys included one optional, open-ended question, which were analysed thematically.ResultsResearch participants (169) and research staff (115) completed the survey. Research participants were predominantly positive about the informed consent process but highlighted the importance of having sufficient time and the value of providing follow-up once the study concludes, e.g. providing results to participants. Most staff (74.4%) staff reported that they felt very confident or confident facilitating informed consent discussions, but 63% felt information leaflets were too long and/or complicated, 56% were concerned about whether participants had understood complex information and 40% felt that time constraints were a barrier. A dominant theme from the open-ended responses to the staff survey was the importance of adequate time and resources.ConclusionsResearch participants in this study were overwhelmingly positive about their experience of the informed consent process. However, research staff expressed concern about how much participants have understood and studies of patient comprehension of research study information would seem to confirm these fears. This study highlights the importance of allocating adequate time to informed consent discussions, and research staff could consider using Teach Back techniques.Trial registrationNot applicable.

Dataset Information

A booklet on participants' rights to improve consent for clinical research: a randomized trial.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A booklet on participants' rights to improve consent for clinical research: a randomized trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets