Dataset Information

Pragmatic Randomized Trials Without Standard Informed Consent?: A National Survey.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Significant debate surrounds the issue of whether written consent is necessary for pragmatic randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) with low risk. OBJECTIVE:To assess the U.S. public's views on alternatives to written consent for low-risk pragmatic RCTs. DESIGN:National experimental survey (2 × 2 factorial design) examining support for written consent versus general notification or verbal consent in 2 research scenarios. SETTING:Web-based survey conducted in December 2014. PARTICIPANTS:2130 U.S. adults sampled from a nationally representative, probability-based online panel (response rate, 64.0%). MEASUREMENTS:Respondent's recommendation to an ethics review board and personal preference as a potential participant on how to obtain consent or notification in the 2 research scenarios. RESULTS:Most respondents in each of the 4 groups (range, 60.3% to 71.5%) recommended written informed consent, and personal preferences were generally in accord with that advice. Most (78.9%) believed that the pragmatic RCTs did not pose additional risks, but 62.5% of these respondents would still recommend written consent. In contrast, a substantial minority in all groups (28.5% to 39.7%) recommended the alternative option (general notification or verbal consent) over written consent. LIMITATION:Framing effects could have affected respondents' attitudes, and nonrespondents may have differed in levels of trust toward research or health care institutions. CONCLUSION:Most of the public favored written informed consent over the most widely advocated alternatives for low-risk pragmatic RCTs; however, a substantial minority favored general notification or verbal consent. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences and Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center.

SUBMITTER: Nayak RK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5573142 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pragmatic Randomized Trials Without Standard Informed Consent?: A National Survey.

Nayak Rahul K RK Wendler David D Miller Franklin G FG Kim Scott Y H SY

Annals of internal medicine 20150901 5

<h4>Background</h4>Significant debate surrounds the issue of whether written consent is necessary for pragmatic randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) with low risk.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the U.S. public's views on alternatives to written consent for low-risk pragmatic RCTs.<h4>Design</h4>National experimental survey (2 × 2 factorial design) examining support for written consent versus general notification or verbal consent in 2 research scenarios.<h4>Setting</h4>Web-based survey conducted in ...[more]

PMID: 26215125

Similar Datasets

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.

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: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:PurposeGeneral notification offers a possible alternative to written informed consent for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs). It involves patients being informed through brochures, posters, and letters that research is being conducted simultaneously to providing clinical care and that patients will be enrolled in pRCTs without study-specific consent. A previous survey found that a substantial minority of respondents endorsed general notification. We aimed to know who is willing to enroll in this type of trials using general notification rather than written consent.MethodsThe previous study was a cross-sectional, probability-based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design. Two scenarios were assessed: two low-risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing two drugs with similar benefit/risk ratio and the other taking the same drug in the morning or at night. Each scenario had two routes: written consent vs verbal consent and written consent vs general notification. In this study, we were interested in the latter route in both scenarios. Respondents' preferences were measured based on their recommendation to the research ethics committee and the respondent's personal preference. We aimed to investigate the characteristics of those supporting general notification in either outcome or the variables explaining consistency and inconsistency between their personal preference and their recommendation. Based on the results of the original survey, we aimed to have at least 200 inconsistent respondents; to this end, the sample size was increased accordingly in a second wave of the survey.ResultsOne thousand six hundre and ten respondents were included; 1003 from the original survey and 607 new ones belonging to the second wave. Thirty-nine percent of respondents chose general notification as personal preference and/or recommendation. Respondents with lower education levels were more prone to accept general notification than those holding a university degree [OR (95% CI)], primary school [2.959 (2.069-4.232)], secondary school [2.899 (2.09-4.021)], or high school [1.620 (1.184-2.217)]. Also unemployed [1.372 (1.064-1.770)] and retired [1.445 (1.049-1.990)], but not students, showed preference for general notification in comparison with those employed. Individuals more than 24 years old and having received high school or university (or postgraduate) education were statistically significantly more consistent in their decisions.ConclusionsThirty-nine percent of respondents is open to not to be asked for their informed consent in low-risk pRCTs; of these, those being less educated and not having current job or being retired are significantly more open to general notification. The use of this alternative method to written consent for simultaneous conduct of pRCTs and care should be considered and educational programs settled up to, in the case of public acceptance, ensure its ethical appropriateness.

Project description:The ethical recruitment of participants with neurological disorders in clinical research requires obtaining initial and ongoing informed consent. The purpose of this study is to characterize barriers faced by research personnel in obtaining informed consent from research participants with neurological disorders and to identify strategies applied by researchers to overcome those barriers. This study was designed as a web-based survey of US researchers with an optional follow-up interview. A subset of participants who completed the survey were selected using a stratified purposeful sampling strategy and invited to participate in an in-depth qualitative interview by phone or video conference. Data were analyzed using a mixed methods approach, including content analysis of survey responses and thematic analysis of interview responses. Over 1 year, 113 survey responses were received from US research personnel directly involved in obtaining informed consent from participants in neurological research. Frequently identified barriers to informed consent included: cognitive and communication impairments (e.g. aphasia), unrealistic expectations of research participants, mistrust of medical research, time constraints, literacy barriers, lack of available social support, and practical or resource-related constraints. Strategies to enhance informed consent included: involving close others to support participant understanding of study-related information, collaborating with more experienced research personnel to facilitate training in obtaining informed consent, encouraging participants to review consent forms in advance of consent discussions, and using printed materials and visual references. Beyond conveying study-related information, researchers included in this study endorsed ethical responsibilities to support deliberation necessary to informed consent in the context of misconceptions about research, unrealistic expectations, limited understanding, mistrust, and/or pressure from close others. Findings highlight the importance of training researchers involved in obtaining informed consent in neurological research to address disease-specific challenges and to support the decision-making processes of potential research participants and their close others.

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:ImportancePotential research participants may assume that randomized trials comparing new interventions with older interventions always hypothesize greater efficacy for the new intervention, as in superiority trials. However, antibiotic trials frequently use "noninferiority" hypotheses allowing a degree of inferior efficacy deemed "clinically acceptable" compared with an older effective drug, in exchange for nonefficacy benefits (eg, decreased adverse effects). Considering these different benefit-harm trade-offs, proper informed consent necessitates supplying different information on the purposes of superiority and noninferiority trials.ObjectiveTo determine the degree to which the study purpose is explained to potential participants in randomized clinical trials of antibiotics and the degree to which study protocols justify their selection of noninferiority hypotheses and amount of "clinically acceptable" inferiority.Design and settingCross-sectional analysis of study protocols, statistical analysis plans (SAPs), and informed consent forms (ICFs) from clinical study reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency. The ICFs were read by both methodologists and patient investigators.Main outcomes and measuresProtocols and SAPs were used as the reference standard to determine prespecified primary hypothesis and record rationale for selection of noninferiority hypotheses and noninferiority margins. This information was cross-referenced against ICFs to determine whether ICFs explained the study purpose.ResultsWe obtained trial documents from 78 randomized trials with prespecified efficacy hypotheses (6 superiority, 72 noninferiority) for 17 antibiotics conducted between 1991 and 2011 that enrolled 39 407 patients. Fifty were included in the ICF analysis. All ICFs contained sections describing study purpose; however, none consistently conveyed study hypothesis to both methodologists and patient investigators. Methodologists found that 1 of 50 conveyed a study purpose. Patient investigators found that 11 of 50 conveyed a study purpose, 7 accurately and 4 inaccurately compared with the reference standard. Seventy-one of 72 noninferiority trial protocols or SAPs provided no rationale for selection of noninferiority hypothesis. None provided a clinical rationale for the chosen amount of decreased efficacy.Conclusions and relevancePatients were not accurately informed of study purpose, which raises questions regarding the ethics of informed consent in antibiotic trials. Noninferiority and superiority trials entail different benefit-harm trade-offs that must be conveyed for ethical informed consent.

Project description:Informed consent discussions for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair should reflect appropriate risks of the open or endovascular repair (EVAR), but few guidelines exist describing what surgeons should discuss. This study examines expert opinion regarding what constitutes informed consent.Design. We conducted an anonymous, web-based, national survey of vascular surgeons. Associations between surgeon characteristics and opinions regarding informed consent were measured using bivariate statistics; multivariable logistic regression was performed to estimate effects adjusted for covariates. Setting. Academic and private practice surgeons were surveyed. Subjects. United States members of the International Society for Vascular Surgery membership. Main Outcome Measure. Surgeons' self-reported opinions regarding the content of informed consent for AAA repair.A total of 199 surgeons completed the survey (response rate 51%). More than 90% of respondents reported that it was essential to discuss mortality risk for both procedures. However, only 60% and 30% of respondents reported that it was essential to discuss the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, respectively. Opinions varied by procedure regarding the risks of impotence (32% vs 62%; EVAR vs open repair), reintervention (78% vs 17%), and rupture during long-term follow-up (57% vs 17%). Younger and private practice surgeons were more likely to discuss complications compared with older surgeons and those in academic practice. Surgeons who perform predominantly EVAR were more likely to quote higher mortality rates for open repair (odds ration [OR] = 3.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4-6.4) and lower reintervention rates for EVAR (OR = 0.3, 95% CI = 0.1-0.7) compared with other surgeons.This is the first study of the practice of informed consent for AAA repair. The only risk that the vast majority of surgeons agreed should be included in informed consent for AAA repair was mortality. Significant variation exists regarding whether other complications should be discussed and what complication rates should be quoted. Surgeon characteristics may influence how risks are presented to patients. Further efforts are needed to develop guidelines to ensure consistent communication of appropriate risk during informed consent for AAA repair.

Dataset Information

Pragmatic Randomized Trials Without Standard Informed Consent?: A National Survey.

Publications

Pragmatic Randomized Trials Without Standard Informed Consent?: A National Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets