Investigating the informed consent process, therapeutic misconception and motivations of Egyptian research participants: a qualitative pilot study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mansour H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5924596 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Investigating the informed consent process, therapeutic misconception and motivations of Egyptian research participants: a qualitative pilot study.
Mansour H H Zaki N N Abdelhai R R Sabry N N Silverman H H El-Kamary S S SS
Eastern Mediterranean health journal = La revue de sante de la Mediterranee orientale = al-Majallah al-sihhiyah li-sharq al-mutawassit 20150519 3
Few studies have explored the informed consent process among research participants in developing countries. This study aimed to evaluate the informed consent process, therapeutic misconception and motivation for participation among Egyptians participating in clinical trials. In a cross-sectional qualitative pilot study 103 participants in 10 clinical trials responded to a questionnaire. Over 90% agreed they had time to ask questions and received adequate information about the risks prior to cons ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundFormal checks of participant understanding are now widely recommended to improve informed consent processes. However, the views of the participants these assessments are designed to protect are rarely considered. In this paper the findings of a qualitative study aimed at documenting community reactions to a semi-structured questionnaire ('quiz') are reported. The quiz was administered to 189 mothers after consenting for their children to participate in a malaria vaccine trial on the Kenyan Coast.MethodsOnce the malaria vaccine trial was underway, focus group discussions were held with some of these mothers (nine groups; 103 mothers), and with community-based field staff attached to the malaria vaccine trial (two groups of five workers). Individual interviews with other trial staff were also held.ResultsThe quiz prompted community members to voice concerns about blood sampling and vaccine side-effects, thereby encouraging additional discussions and interactions between the research team and potential study participants. However, it also caused significant upset and concern. Some of the quiz questions, or the way in which they were asked, appeared to fuel misconceptions and fears, with potentially negative consequences for both the study and community members.ConclusionFormal approaches to checking study understanding should be employed with sensitivity and caution. They are influenced by and impact upon complex social relationships between and among researchers and community members. Adequate consideration of these contexts in assessments of understanding, and in responding to the issues raised, requires strong social science capacity.
| S-EPMC2204020 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8371296 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesIf patients are to reap the benefits of continued drug development, an understanding of why healthy participants take part in phase I clinical trials is imperative. The current study aimed to explore the nature of these underlying motivations which may, in turn, improve the overall participant experience and assist in the development of more effective recruitment and retention strategies.DesignThis study used a qualitative design based on the theory of planned behaviour. Specifically, it explored healthy participants' underlying behavioural, control and normative beliefs which influence their participation in phase I clinical trials.SettingThis study took place at a company that specialises in conducting phase I and phase II clinical trials in the Australian state of Queensland.ParticipantsParticipants (n=31) were either currently undergoing a phase I clinical trial or had previously taken part in a phase I clinical trial.ResultsResults showed that the motivations were varied and not solely centred on financial gains. Reported advantages of participation included altruism, while inconvenience was most often reported as a disadvantage. Friends were reported as those most likely to approve, while one's mother was reported as most likely to disapprove. Having a suitable time frame/flexible scheduling and feeling comfortable taking part in the trial were both the most commonly reported facilitators, while inflexible scheduling/time commitment was the most commonly reported barrier.ConclusionsPractical implications included the need for organisations involved in clinical trials to be mindful of inflexible scheduling and exploring the possibility of making educational materials available to family members who may be concerned about the risks associated with participation. Overall, it is anticipated that the results of this study will improve the understanding of factors that influence phase I clinical trial participation which may, ultimately, help develop new therapeutics to improve patient health.
| S-EPMC6340482 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The doctrine of informed consent, as opposed to medical paternalism, is intended to facilitate patient autonomy by allowing patient participation in the medical decision-making process. However, regrettably, the surgical informed consent (SIC) process is invariably underestimated and reduced to a documentary procedure to protect physicians from legal liability. Moreover, residents are rarely trained in the clinical and communicative skills required for the SIC process. Accordingly, to increase professional awareness of the SIC process, a brief history and introduction to the current elements of SIC, the obstacles to patient autonomy and SIC, benefits and drawbacks of SIC, planning of an optimal SIC process, and its application to cases of an unruptured intracranial aneurysm are all presented. Optimal informed consent process can provide patients with a good comprehension of their disease and treatment, augmented autonomy, a strong therapeutic alliance with their doctors, and psychological defenses for coping with stressful surgical circumstances.
| S-EPMC5544373 | biostudies-other
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.
| S-EPMC7302495 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aim: In the absence of an effective treatment, informed participation in dementia research can hardly be underestimated. However, although informed consent is key in biomedical research, it may become a barrier to participation. Whether informed consent may cause confusion and contribute to unfair participant selection in dementia research is not known. In preparation of a future epidemiological study on the prevalence and impact of dementia in Switzerland, we aimed to conduct a qualitative study to explore participants' comprehension of the purpose of informed consent form and process shortly after participation in the pilot and validation study that preceded the large scale survey. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study with 22 participants of the validation phase of an epidemiological study on the prevalence and impact of dementia in Switzerland to capture their understanding of both the nature and the content of the informed consent form and process. Participants were older adults (65 years or more) eligible for a dementia epidemiological study and their informant (a person who could provide information on their health and cognition). None of the participants reported to be suffering from dementia at the time of the interview. Results: We found that participants held inaccurate and potentially trust-threatening beliefs regarding the scope of the informed consent. Participants identified contradictory contextual, formal and content needs that are difficult to be fulfilled, and misperceived the clinical and research settings in terms of informed consent procedures. Conclusions: Participants and their proxies should be informed about both the scope of the informed consent process, and the content of the informed consent document in a focused, age-appropriate manner, while dispelling confusion about the purpose of research.
| S-EPMC8058191 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Consenting to participate in a clinical research study after being properly and correctly informed upholds the basic ethical principle of "autonomy" in human research. The informed consent is a process by which the physician sensitizes the patient about the nature, procedures, risks benefits, treatment schedules, etc of the study in a language that is non-technical and understandable by the study participant. Informed consent document (ICD) has got two parts: the 'Subject Information Sheet' and the 'Informed Consent Form' (ICF); and they have to be approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) before administration. Consent should be obtained without any coercion. In case of a situation where a participant is not able to give informed consent (e.g. unconscious, minor or those suffering from severe mental illness or disability) or is illiterate, it has be obtained from a legally acceptable representative (LAR). If the participant or LAR is unable to read/write, then an impartial witness should be present during the entire informed consent process and must append his/her signatures to the consent form. For children < 7 years, verbal consent is essential and for mature minors (age group 7 to 18 years) informed assent should be obtained.
| S-EPMC5527718 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveInformed consent is central to ethical medical practice, but little is known about how the process takes place in clinical practice. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a common revascularisation procedure. Studies report that patients overestimate benefits, forget the risks and are unaware of alternative treatments. The aim of this study was to describe PCI patients' and cardiologists' experiences of the informed consent process in acute care settings.Design/setting/participantsA qualitative study with a maximum variation sample of elective and acute PCI patients and cardiologists taking their consent, recruited from a district general hospital and tertiary centre. In-depth interviews were conducted, and consent discussions were audio recorded. Data collection, coding and theorising occurred simultaneously.FindingsForty-one (26 male) patients scheduled for elective (20) or urgent (21) PCI and 19 cardiologists (5 female) participated. Despite diversity in patients' experiences of informed consent, elective and acute patients experienced a common four-stage process of consent. Most patients made the decision to have treatment at PCI referral and took a passive role in the discussions we recorded. They recognised cardiologists as experts, trusted the medical system to 'fix' their health problem and were unaware of their role in the informed consent process. Informed consent discussions functioned as a formal 'event',enabling cardiologists to check patients' understanding and enabling patients to access treatment.ConclusionsThe configuration of services and patients' perceptions of their role in informed consent underpin a mismatch between legal and ethical principles of informed consent and current practice. The variation in patients' experiences of the current place of informed consent in service delivery represents a missed opportunity for cardiologists to work in decision-making partnerships with patients. In light of recent changes in the law, a new approach to informed consent is required.
| S-EPMC5541457 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProviding understandable information to patients is necessary to achieve the aims of the Informed Consent process: respecting and promoting patients' autonomy and protecting patients from harm. In recent decades, new, primarily digital technologies have been used to apply and test innovative formats of Informed Consent. We conducted a systematic review to explore the impact of using digital tools for Informed Consent in both clinical research and in clinical practice. Understanding, satisfaction and participation were compared for digital tools versus the non-digital Informed Consent process.MethodsWe searched for studies on available electronic databases, including Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane. Studies were identified using specific Mesh-terms/keywords. We included studies, published from January 2012 to October 2020, that focused on the use of digital Informed Consent tools for clinical research, or clinical procedures. Digital interventions were defined as interventions that used multimedia or audio-video to provide information to patients. We classified the interventions into 3 different categories: video only, non-interactive multimedia, and interactive multimedia.ResultsOur search yielded 19,579 publications. After title and abstract screening 100 studies were retained for full-text analysis, of which 73 publications were included. Studies examined interactive multimedia (29/73), non-interactive multimedia (13/73), and videos (31/73), and most (34/38) studies were conducted on adults. Innovations in consent were tested for clinical/surgical procedures (26/38) and clinical research (12/38). For research IC, 21 outcomes were explored, with a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes being observed in 8/12 studies. For clinical/surgical procedures 49 outcomes were explored, and 21/26 studies reported a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes.ConclusionsDigital technologies for informed consent were not found to negatively affect any of the outcomes, and overall, multimedia tools seem desirable. Multimedia tools indicated a higher impact than videos only. Presence of a researcher may potentially enhance efficacy of different outcomes in research IC processes. Studies were heterogeneous in design, making evaluation of impact challenging. Robust study design including standardization is needed to conclusively assess impact.
| S-EPMC7913441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Informed consent is often cited as the “cornerstone” of research ethics. Its intent is that participants enter research voluntarily, with an understanding of what their participation entails. Despite agreement on the necessity to obtain informed consent in research, opinions vary on the threshold of disclosure necessary and the best method to obtain consent. We aimed to investigate Australian researchers’ views on, and their experiences with, obtaining informed consent. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 researchers from NSW institutions, working in various fields of research. Interviews were analysed and coded to identify themes. Results Researchers reported that consent involved information disclosure, understanding and a voluntary decision. They emphasised the variability of consent interactions, which were dependent on potential participants’ abilities and interests, study complexity and context. All researchers reported providing written information to potential participants, yet questioned the readability and utility of this information. The majority reported using signed consent forms to ‘operationalise’ consent and reported little awareness of, and lack of support in implementing more dynamic informed consent procedures, such as verbal informed consent, that was fit for the purposes of their studies. Views on Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) varied. Some reported inconsistent, arduous inputs on the information form and consent process. Others expressed reliance on HRECs for guidance, viewing them as institutional safeguards. Conclusions This study highlights the importance of transparent relationships, both between researchers and participants, and between researchers and HRECs. Where the relationship with study participants was reported as more robust, researchers felt that they were better able to ensure participants made better, more informed decisions. Where the relationship with HRECs was reported as more robust, researchers were more likely to view them as institutional safeguards, rather than as bureaucratic hindrances. Conscientious and mindful researchers are paramount to ensuring the procedure accommodates individual requirements. This study advocates that when designing ethical informed consent practices, researchers should be integrated as autonomous players with a positive input on the process, rather than, in the worst case, predatory recruiters to be curtailed by information forms and oversight.
| S-EPMC7531157 | biostudies-literature