Dataset Information

Linguistic Strategies for Improving Informed Consent in Clinical Trials Among Low Health Literacy Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Improving informed consent to participate in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is a key challenge in cancer communication. The current study examines strategies for enhancing randomization comprehension among patients with diverse levels of health literacy and identifies cognitive and affective predictors of intentions to participate in cancer RCTs.

Methods

Using a post-test-only experimental design, cancer patients (n?=?500) were randomly assigned to receive one of three message conditions for explaining randomization (ie, plain language condition, gambling metaphor, benign metaphor) or a control message. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

Health literacy was a statistically significant moderator of randomization comprehension (P = .03). Among participants with the lowest levels of health literacy, the benign metaphor resulted in greater comprehension of randomization as compared with plain language (P = .04) and control (P = .004) messages. Among participants with the highest levels of health literacy, the gambling metaphor resulted in greater randomization comprehension as compared with the benign metaphor (P = .04). A serial mediation model showed a statistically significant negative indirect effect of comprehension on behavioral intention through personal relevance of RCTs and anxiety associated with participation in RCTs (P < .001).

Conclusions

The effectiveness of metaphors for explaining randomization depends on health literacy, with a benign metaphor being particularly effective for patients at the lower end of the health literacy spectrum. The theoretical model demonstrates the cognitive and affective predictors of behavioral intention to participate in cancer RCTs and offers guidance on how future research should employ communication strategies to improve the informed consent processes.

SUBMITTER: Krieger JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5441300 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Linguistic Strategies for Improving Informed Consent in Clinical Trials Among Low Health Literacy Patients.

Krieger Janice L JL Neil Jordan M JM Strekalova Yulia A YA Sarge Melanie A MA

Journal of the National Cancer Institute 20161028 3

<h4>Background</h4>Improving informed consent to participate in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is a key challenge in cancer communication. The current study examines strategies for enhancing randomization comprehension among patients with diverse levels of health literacy and identifies cognitive and affective predictors of intentions to participate in cancer RCTs.<h4>Methods</h4>Using a post-test-only experimental design, cancer patients (n = 500) were randomly assigned to receive one of thr ...[more]

PMID: 27794035

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsPragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) collect data that have the potential to improve medical care significantly. However, these trials may be undermined by the requirement to obtain written informed consent, which can decrease accrual and increase selection bias. Recent data suggest that the majority of the US public endorses written consent for low-risk pRCTs. The present study was designed to assess whether this view is specific to the US.MethodsThe study took the form of a cross-sectional, probability-based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design, assessing support for written informed consent vs. verbal consent or general notification for two low-risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing two drugs with similar risk/benefit profiles and the other comparing the same drug being taken in the morning or at night. The primary outcome measures were respondents' personal preference and hypothetical recommendation to a research ethics committee regarding the use of written informed consent vs. the alternatives.ResultsA total of 2008 adults sampled from a probability-based online panel responded to the web-based survey conducted in May 2016 (response rate: 61%). Overall, 77% of respondents endorsed written consent. In both scenarios, the alternative of general notification received significantly more support (28.7-37.1%) than the alternative of verbal consent (12.7-14.0%) (P = 0.001). Forty per cent of respondents preferred and/or recommended general notification rather than written consent.ConclusionsThe results suggested that, rather than attempting to waive written consent, current pRCTs should focus on developing ways to implement written consent that provide sufficient information without undermining recruitment or increasing selection bias. The finding that around 40% of respondents endorsed general notification over written consent raises the possibility that, with educational efforts, the majority of Spaniards might accept general notification for low-risk pRCTs.

Project description:The 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.This 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.Overall, 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.As 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.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The 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. METHODS:A 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. RESULTS:The 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. CONCLUSIONS:This 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:Information to be included in advance informed consent forms for health care-associated pneumonia treatment trials remains to be determined. Objective:To identify and determine how to describe information to be included in an advance informed consent form for an early-enrollment noninferiority hospital-acquired and/or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants:A Delphi consensus process with stakeholders in HABP/VABP clinical trials was conducted using qualitative semistructured telephone interviews from June to August 2016, followed by 2 online surveys, the first from April to May 2017, and the second from September to October 2017. All stakeholders who participated in the interview were invited to participate in the first survey. Stakeholders who participated in the first survey were invited to participate in the second survey. Stakeholders were patients at risk of pneumonia, caregivers, representatives of institutional review boards, investigators, and study coordinators. Main Outcomes and Measures:Description and consensus of information to be included in advance informed consent forms for early enrollment in noninferiority HABP/VABP clinical trials. Results:Suggestions from 52 stakeholders about what key informed consent concepts to include and how to explain them were used to create 3 categories to be included in an advance consent form: (1) reassurances on patient health and treatment, (2) rationale for advance consent and early enrollment, and (3) an explanation of noninferiority. At the end of the Delphi process, at least 80% consensus was reached among the 40 stakeholders who participated in the second online survey on each of the statements to include in the proposed consent text. Throughout the process, however, describing and reaching consensus on statements about noninferiority was more problematic than the other categories. Conclusions and Relevance:The stakeholders endorsed consent language to be used in combination with a strategy for enrolling patients at highest risk for pneumonia before infection onset. Data-driven consent language may help potential participants make informed decisions about their involvement in clinical research and improve enrollment rates, which are necessary to evaluate new treatments and improve patient care. The proposed consent language may be adapted for other trials using an early enrollment strategy and for noninferiority trials.

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.

Project description:Cognitive impairment is a characteristic of schizophrenia. This impairment may affect the retention of information required for ongoing knowledgeable participation in clinical trials. This study monitored retention of study-related knowledge-including assessment of therapeutic misconception-in people with stable, DSM-IV schizophrenia during participation in placebo-controlled clinical trials of adjunctive agents. Stability was defined as being on an antipsychotic with no change in medication or dose over the previous 4 weeks.This longitudinal study assessed retention of clinical trial-related consent information. Individuals enrolling in 1 of 8 clinical trials were approached for participation. Participants came from research clinics and community mental health centers. At baseline, clinical trial consent forms were reviewed and study knowledge assessed. Participants were randomized to follow-up assessments at weeks 1, 4, and 8; weeks 4 and 8; or at week 8 only. Clinical trial consent forms were not rereviewed at any follow-up visit.Fifty-nine participants were enrolled; analysis included 52 participants with at least 1 follow-up visit. Study knowledge did not decrease meaningfully in any group. Therapeutic misconception was not observed in participants during the study. The group assessed most frequently demonstrated significant improvement over baseline (t44 = 3.43, P = .001). Retention of study knowledge was not related to symptoms but had a weak correlation with cognitive capacity (R = 0.28, P = .07). Performance did not differ between participants from research clinics and those from community mental health centers.Clinically stable people with schizophrenia enrolling in a placebo-controlled adjunctive medication study, once determined to have capacity to consent to a clinical trial, retained appropriate study knowledge for at least 8 weeks. In the absence of a specific reason to suspect a loss of decisional capacity, there appears to be no need to routinely reevaluate participants during this type of clinical trial.

Project description:BackgroundA first therapeutic target of somatic genome editing (SGE) is sickle cell disease (SCD), the most commonly inherited blood disorders, affecting more than 100,000 individuals in the United States. Advancement of SGE is contingent on patient participation in first in human clinical trials. However, seriously ill patients may be vulnerable to overestimating the benefits of early phase studies while underestimating the risks. Therefore, ensuring potential clinical trial participants are fully informed prior to participating in a SGE clinical trial is critical. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study of adults with SCD as well as parents and physicians of individuals with SCD. Participants were asked to complete a genetic literacy survey, watch an educational video about genome editing, complete a two-part survey, and take part in focus group discussions. Focus groups addressed topics on clinical trials, ethics of gene editing, and what is not understood regarding gene editing. All focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using conventional content analysis techniques to identify major themes. Results: Our study examined the views of SCD stakeholders regarding what they want and need to know about genome editing to make an informed decision to participate in a SGE clinical trial. Prominent themes included stakeholders' desire to understand treatment side effects, mechanism of action of SGE, trial qualification criteria, and the impact of SGE on quality of life. In addition, some physicians expressed concerns about the extent to which their patients would understand concepts related to SGE; however, individuals with SCD demonstrated higher levels of genetic literacy than estimated by physicians. Conclusions: Designing ethically robust genome editing clinical trials for the SCD population will require, at a minimum, addressing the expressed information needs of the community through culturally sensitive engagement, so that they can make informed decisions to consider participation in clinical trials.

Dataset Information

Linguistic Strategies for Improving Informed Consent in Clinical Trials Among Low Health Literacy Patients.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Linguistic Strategies for Improving Informed Consent in Clinical Trials Among Low Health Literacy Patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets