Public preferences on written informed consent for low-risk pragmatic clinical trials in Spain.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aims
Pragmatic 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.Methods
The 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.Results
A 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.Conclusions
The 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.
SUBMITTER: Dal-Re R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5582372 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Public preferences on written informed consent for low-risk pragmatic clinical trials in Spain.
Dal-Ré Rafael R Carcas Antonio J AJ Carné Xavier X Wendler David D
British journal of clinical pharmacology 20170611 9
<h4>Aims</h4>Pragmatic 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.<h4>Methods</h4>The study took the ...[more]
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.
| S-EPMC5604493 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC5573142 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5684310 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImproving 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.MethodsUsing 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.ResultsHealth 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).ConclusionsThe 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.
| S-EPMC5441300 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePragmatic clinical trials that seek informed consent after randomization (ie, postrandomization consent) are increasingly used, but debate on ethics persists because control arm patients are not specifically informed about the trials and randomization occurs before consent for the trials. The public's attitude toward postrandomization consent trials is unknown, but the way the trials are described could bias people's views.ObjectivesTo assess the attitudes of the US general public toward postrandomization informed consent for pragmatic trials and to measure potential framing and other factors associated with those attitudes.Design, setting, and participantsAn online, 2 × 2 experimental survey (fielded between February 23 and April 3, 2018) portraying 4 scenarios of postrandomization informed consent (with prior broad consent for medical record use) was conducted. These scenarios included traditional randomized clinical trial language framing vs alternative framing in a high-stakes trial (ie, survival in leukemia) or low-stakes trial (ie, blood glucose level in diabetes). A total of 3793 individuals invited to participate were part of an existing panel representative of the US general public (GfK KnowledgePanel).Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of participants who would recommend that an ethics review board approve a postrandomization consent pragmatic trial.ResultsA total of 2042 of 3739 invitees (54.6%) responded; after exclusion of 38 incomplete surveys, 2004 participants were included in the analysis. Of these, 997 (49.8%) were women, 1440 (71.9%) were white non-Hispanic, 199 (9.9%) were black non-Hispanic, and 233 (11.6%) were Hispanic. Mean (SD) age was 47.5 (17.4) years. Across scenarios, weighted data showed that 75.4% of the participants would recommend approval of the postrandomization consent pragmatic trial, 20.4% would probably not recommend approval, and 4.2% would definitely not recommend approval. Approval was not sensitive to framing language (traditional vs new framing in high-stakes scenario, 74.3% vs 76.8%, P = .40; in low-stakes scenario, 77.7% vs 72.9%, P = .10) or to the stakes (low vs high stakes in traditional framing, 77.7% vs 74.3%, P = .25; in new framing, 72.9% vs 76.8%, P = .18). Better understanding of the postrandomization consent design was associated with higher rate of approval (78.1% vs 65.0%, P = .002 for high-stakes scenario; 77.2% vs 64.9%, P = .004 for low-stakes scenario), especially among those with less education. However, opinions about personal involvement in the control arm were more cautious (range depending on scenario, 45.6%-59.7%) and sensitive to stakes but not to framing.Conclusions and relevanceThe public's generally high rate of approval of the ethics of postrandomization informed consent for pragmatic trial designs does not appear to be affected by whether postrandomization consent design is framed using traditional randomized clinical trial terminology, regardless of the stakes of the trial. Promoting better understanding of the design may increase its acceptance by the public.
| S-EPMC6324565 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) created the exception from informed consent (EFIC) pathway in 1996 to allow some emergency trials to enroll patients without informed consent. To protect individual autonomy and preserve public trust, the FDA requires that EFIC trial investigators consult with community members before a trial may begin.ObjectivesTo analyze data from surveys conducted as part of community consultation ahead of EFIC trials and assess levels of public approval.Data sourcesAll trials granted an EFIC must submit documentation of compliance with EFIC regulations to a publicly available docket at the FDA. Submissions between November 1, 1996, and October 23, 2017, were reviewed.Study selectionTrials with survey data were included.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted between January 2018 and June 2018 and were analyzed between June 2018 and August 2018. The quality and validity of data were assessed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A random-effects metaregression was used to assess the association of demographic characteristics with EFIC approval.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary study outcome was EFIC approval.ResultsThe FDA docket contained 15 958 pages of material with survey data for 42 448 individuals submitted by 27 trials. Public approval of EFIC varied by question type, with more people willing to approve initiation of EFIC trials in their community (86.5%) than personal enrollment (73.0%), enrollment of a family member (68.6%), or the principle of enrollment without consent (58.4%) (P < .001 for all comparisons). In the United States, African American individuals made up 29.3% of those enrolled in EFIC trials that reported data on race (5064 of 17 302) but only 16.7% of those surveyed as part of community consultation. In the United States and Canada, men made up 42.9% of the surveyed population but 65.6% of those eventually enrolled in EFIC trials (29 961 of 45 694). Groups surveyed with higher proportions of African American and male respondents had lower rates of EFIC approval.Conclusions and relevancePublic approval of EFIC trials varied by question type and by the respondents' reported race and sex. The demographic characteristics of those surveyed did not match the demographic characteristics of EFIC enrollees. The FDA could strengthen community consultation by standardizing survey instruments and reporting, requiring broader inclusion of African American and male respondents, clarifying the function of surveys in the development and modification of trial protocols, and building more public consensus around the acceptable use of EFIC.
| S-EPMC6659147 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The US Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services outline regulations allowing an exception from informed consent (EFIC) for research conducted in an emergency setting. Acute care clinical trials using EFIC must include community consultation and public disclosure (CC/PD) activities. We describe our experience using social media to facilitate the CC/PD process in two trauma resuscitation clinical trials.We conducted local CC/PD activities for two multicenter trauma clinical trials, Pragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) and Prehospital Tranexamic Acid Use for Traumatic Brain Injury (ROC-TXA). As part of the CC/PD process, we developed research study advertisements using the social media Web site Facebook. The Facebook advertisements directed users to a regional study Web site that contained trial information. We targeted the advertisements to specific demographic users, in specific geographic areas. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics.During the study periods, the PROPPR Facebook advertisement was displayed 5,001,520 times (12 displays per target population) with 374 individuals selecting the advertisement. The ROC-TXA Facebook advertisement was displayed 3,806,448 times (8 per target population) with 790 individuals selecting the advertisement. Respondents to both Facebook advertisements were mostly male (52.6%), with the highest proportion between the ages 15 years and 24 years (28.2%). Collectively, 26.9% of individuals that clicked on the Facebook advertisement spent more than 3 minutes on the study Web site (3-49 minutes). Commonly accessed Web pages were "contact us" (PROPPR, 5.5%; ROC-TXA, 7.7%), "study-specific FAQs" (PROPPR, 2.4%; ROC-TXA, 6.7%), and "opt out of research" (PROPPR, 2.5%; ROC-TXA, 3.8%). Of 51 total individuals viewing the opt out of research information (PROPPR, 19; ROC-TXA, 32), time spent on that specific page was modest (PROPPR, 62 seconds; ROC-TXA, 55 seconds), with no individuals requesting to opt out of either study participation.In clinical trauma trials using EFIC, social media may provide a viable option for facilitating the CC/PD process.
| S-EPMC4874849 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundInformed consent (IC) is an essential step in helping patients be aware of consequences of their treatment decisions. With surgery, it is vitally important for patients to understand the risks and benefits of the procedure and decide accordingly. We explored whether a written IC form was provided to patients; whether they read and signed it; whether they communicated orally with the physician; whether these communications influenced patient decisions.MethodsAdult postsurgical patients in nine general hospitals of Italy's Campania Region were interviewed via a structured questionnaire between the second and seventh day after the surgery at the end of the first surgical follow up visit. Physicians who were independent from the surgical team administered the questionnaire.ResultsThe written IC form was given to 84.5% of those interviewed. All recipients of the form signed it, either personally or through a delegate; however, 13.9% did not know/remember having done so; 51.8% said that they read it thoroughly. Of those who reported to have read it, 90.9% judged it to be clear. Of those receiving the written consent form, 52.0% had gotten it the day before the surgery at the earliest 41.1% received it some hours or immediately before the procedure. The written IC form was explained to 65.6% of the patients, and 93.9% of them received further oral information that deemed understandable. Most attention was given to the diagnosis and the type of surgical procedure, which was communicated respectively to 92.8 and 88.2% of the patients. Almost one in two patients believed that the information provided some emotional relief, while 23.2% experienced increased anxiety. Younger patients (age???60) and patients with higher levels of education were more likely to read the written IC form.ConclusionsThe written IC form is not sufficient in assuring patients and making them fully aware of choices they made for their health; pre-operative information that was delivered orally better served the patients' needs. To improve the quality of communication we suggest enhancing physicians' communication skills and for them to use structured conversation to ensure that individuals are completely informed before undergoing their procedures.
| S-EPMC6323683 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Informed consent is essential to ethical research and is requisite to participation in clinical research. Yet most hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) informed consent forms (ICFs) are written at reading levels that are above the ability of the average person in the United States (U.S.). The recent development of ICF templates by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart Blood and Lung Institute have not resulted in increased patient comprehension of information. Barriers to creating Easy-to-Read ICFs that meet U.S. federal requirements and pass institutional review board (IRB) review are the result of multiple interconnected factors. The Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) formed an ad hoc review team to address concerns regarding the overall readability and length of ICFs used for BMT CTN trials. This paper summarizes recommendations of the review team for the development and formatting of Easy-to-Read ICFs for HCT multicenter clinical trials, the most novel of which is the use of a 2-column format. These recommendations intend to guide the ICF writing process, simplify local IRB review of the ICF, enhance patient comprehension, and improve patient satisfaction. The BMT CTN plans to evaluate the impact of the Easy-to-Read format compared with the traditional format on the informed consent process.
| S-EPMC3242929 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6021104 | biostudies-literature