Challenges in informed consent decision-making in Korean clinical research: A participant perspective.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Choi IS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6532870 | biostudies-literature | 2019
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundClinical research nurses (CRNs) have first-hand experience with ethical challenges and play a crucial role in upholding ethical conduct and adherence to the principles of informed consent in clinical research. This study explores the ethical challenges encountered by CRNs in the process of obtaining informed consent for clinical research.MethodsA qualitative exploratory design. Semistructured interviews (n = 14) were conducted with diverse CRNs in Sweden. These CRNs covered a wide range of research fields, including pharmaceutical and academic studies, interventions, and observational research, spanning different trial phases, patient categories, and medical conditions. The interviews were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis.ResultsThe analysis identified three main categories: (i) threats to voluntariness, (ii) measures to safeguard voluntariness, and (iii) questionable exclusion of certain groups. CRNs face challenges due to time constraints, rushed decisions, information overload, and excessive reliance on physicians' recommendations. Overestimating therapeutic benefits in stages of advanced illness emerged as a risk to voluntariness. CRNs outlined proactive solutions, such as allowing ample decision-making time and offering support, especially for terminally ill patients. Concerns were also voiced about excluding certain demographics, such as those with language barriers or cognitive impairments.ConclusionsIn conclusion, upholding ethical research standards requires recognising various factors affecting patient voluntariness. Researchers and CRNs should prioritise refining the informed consent process, overcoming participation challenges, and aligning scientific rigour with personalised care. Additionally, a concerted effort is vital to meet the diverse needs of patient populations, including equitable inclusion of individuals with language barriers or cognitive limitations in clinical studies. These findings have significant implications for enhancing the ethics of clinical research and advancing person-centred care.
| S-EPMC10712041 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeConsent processes are critical for clinical care and research and may benefit from incorporating digital strategies. We compared an electronic informed consent (eIC) option to paper consent across four outcomes: (1) technology burden, (2) protocol comprehension, (3) participant agency (ability to self-advocate), and (4) completion of required document fields.MethodsWe assessed participant experience with eIC processes compared with traditional paper-based consenting using surveys and compared completeness of required fields, over 3 years (2019-2021). Participants who consented to a clinical trial at a large academic cancer center via paper or eIC were invited to either pre-COVID-19 pandemic survey 1 (technology burden) or intrapandemic survey 2 (comprehension and agency). Consent document completeness was assessed via electronic health records.ResultsOn survey 1, 83% of participants (n = 777) indicated eIC was easy or very easy to use; discomfort with technology overall was not correlated with discomfort using eIC. For survey 2, eIC (n = 262) and paper consenters (n = 193) had similar comprehension scores. All participants responded favorably to at least five of six agency statements; however, eIC generated a higher proportion of positive free-text comments (P < .05), with themes such as thoroughness of the discussion and consenter professionalism. eIC use yielded no completeness errors across 235 consents versus 6.4% for paper (P < .001).ConclusionOur findings suggest that eIC when compared with paper (1) did not increase technology burden, (2) supported comparable comprehension, (3) upheld key elements of participant agency, and (4) increased completion of mandatory consent fields. The results support a broader call for organizations to offer eIC for clinical research discussions to enhance the overall participant experience and increase the completeness of the consent process.
| S-EPMC10022878 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough phase I clinical trials are the gateway to progress in cancer therapies, this setting poses ethical challenges to ensure that patients provide consent free from misunderstandings of therapeutic intent or unrealistic expectations of benefit. The design of phase I oncology trials has evolved rapidly over time and today includes more targeted agents and combinations of experimental drugs with standard drugs, which may further complicate how patients understand phase I research participation.MethodsWe conducted semistructured interviews regarding motivations, decision making, and understanding of trial purpose nested within a phase I clinical trial of a novel PI3kinase inhibitor combined with a standard oral chemotherapy in 18 participants.ResultsFewer than half of patients correctly identified the safety and dosing objectives. The inclusion of a targeted agent was attractive to participants and was perceived as an indicator of less toxic or more efficacious therapy, with less appreciation for added risks. The significance of a cellular drug target, without a known predictive biomarker of response, was unclear to patients. The inclusion of a standard drug in the regimen attracted patients with more treatment options than traditional first-in-human participants. Patients frequently expressed a realistic understanding of prognosis and uncertainty of benefit, but simultaneous hopes for extraordinary outcomes.ConclusionNovel phase I oncology trial designs may attract patients with less constrained treatment options, but the inclusion of targeted drugs and combinations including standard chemotherapies is likely to complicate understanding of safety and dosing objectives and likelihood of personal benefit for purposes of informed consent.
| S-EPMC5640413 | 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:BackgroundAlthough the impact of the kidney donor profile index (KDPI) on kidney discard is well researched, less is known about how patients make decisions about whether to give consent for KDPI > 85 kidney offers.MethodsWe conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with 16 transplant recipients, 15 transplant candidates, and 23 clinicians (transplant surgeons, nephrologists, and nurse coordinators) to assess and compare perceptions of transplant education, informed consent for KDPI > 85 kidneys' and the decision-making process for accepting kidney offers. Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data.ResultsFour themes emerged: (1) patients reported uncertainty about the meaning of KDPI or could not recall information about KDPI; (2) patients reported uncertainty about their KDPI > 85 consent status and a limited role in KDPI > 85 consent decision making; (3) patients' reported willingness to consider KDPI > 85 kidneys depended on their age, health status, and experiences with dialysis, and thus it changed over time; (4) patients' underestimated the survival benefit of transplantation compared with dialysis, which could affect their KDPI > 85 consent decision making.ConclusionsTo better support patients' informed decision making about accepting KDPI > 85 kidneys, centers must ensure that all patients receive education about the trade-offs between accepting a KDPI > 85 kidney and remaining on dialysis. Additionally, education about KDPI and discussions about informed consent for KDPI > 85 kidneys must be repeated at multiple time points while patients are on the waiting list.
| S-EPMC8683202 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Long informed consent forms (ICFs) remain commonplace, yet they can negatively affect potential participants' understanding of clinical research. We aimed to build consensus among six groups of key stakeholders on advancing the use of shorter ICFs in clinical research. Partnering with the HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN), we used a modified Delphi process with semistructured interviews and online surveys. Concerns about redundancy of information were common. Respondents supported three strategies for reducing ICF length: (a) 91% agreed or strongly agreed with grouping study procedures by frequency, (b) 91% were comfortable or very comfortable with placing supplemental information into appendices, and (c) 93% agreed or strongly agreed with listing duplicate side effects only once. Implementing these strategies will facilitate adoption of the proposed changes to U.S. regulations on ICF length, should they be enacted.
| S-EPMC5821132 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to gather qualitative feedback on patient perceptions of informed consent forms and elicit recommendations to improve readability and utility for enhanced patient safety and engagement in shared decision making.MethodsSixty interviews in personal interviews were conducted consisting of a literacy and numeracy assessment, a comprehension quiz to assess retention of key information, and open-ended questions to determine reactions, clarity of information, and suggestions for improvement.ResultsAlthough 68% of the participants had education beyond high school, many still missed comprehension questions and found the forms difficult to read. Recurrent suggestions included specific formatting changes to enhance readability, a need for additional sources of information, mixed attitudes toward inclusion of risk information, and the recognized importance of physician-patient conversations.ConclusionsThis study provides evidence from the patient perspective that consent forms are too complex and fail to achieve comprehension. Future studies should be conducted using patients' suggestions for form redesign and inclusion of supplemental educational tools to optimize communication and safety to achieve more informed health care decision making.
| S-EPMC5290300 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe landscape of clinical research has evolved over the past decade. With technological advances, the practice of using electronic informed consent (eIC) has emerged. However, a number of challenges hinder the successful and widespread deployment of eIC in clinical research. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the views of various stakeholders on the potential advantages and challenges of eIC.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 39 participants from 5 stakeholder groups from across 11 European countries. The stakeholder groups included physicians, patient organization representatives, regulator representatives, ethics committee members, and pharmaceutical industry representatives, and all were involved in clinical research. Interviews were analyzed using the framework method.ResultsInterviewees identified that a powerful feature of eIC is its personalized approach as it may increase participant empowerment. However, they identified several ethical and practical challenges, such as ensuring research participants are not overloaded with information and offering the same options to research participants who would prefer a paper-based informed consent rather than eIC. According to the interviewees, eIC has the potential to establish efficient long-term interactions between the research participants and the research team in order to keep the participants informed during and after the study. Interviewees emphasized that a personal interaction with the research team is of utmost importance and this cannot be replaced by an electronic platform. In addition, interviewees across the stakeholder groups supported the idea of having a harmonized eIC approach across the European Member States.ConclusionsInterviewees reported a range of design and implementation challenges which needs to be overcome to foster innovation in informing research participants and obtaining their consent electronically. It was considered important that the implementation of eIC runs alongside the face-to-face contact between research participants and the research team. Moreover, interviewees expect that eIC could offer the opportunity to enable a personalized approach and to strengthen continuous communication over time. If successfully implemented, eIC may facilitate the engagement of research participants in clinical research.
| S-EPMC8325412 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImplementation of patient preferences for use of electronic health records for research has been traditionally limited to identifiable data. Tiered e-consent for use of de-identified data has traditionally been deemed unnecessary or impractical for implementation in clinical settings.MethodsWe developed a web-based tiered informed consent tool called informed consent for clinical data and bio-sample use for research (iCONCUR) that honors granular patient preferences for use of electronic health record data in research. We piloted this tool in 4 outpatient clinics of an academic medical center.ResultsOf patients offered access to iCONCUR, 394 agreed to participate in this study, among whom 126 patients accessed the website to modify their records according to data category and data recipient. The majority consented to share most of their data and specimens with researchers. Willingness to share was greater among participants from an Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) clinic than those from internal medicine clinics. The number of items declined was higher for for-profit institution recipients. Overall, participants were most willing to share demographics and body measurements and least willing to share family history and financial data. Participants indicated that having granular choices for data sharing was appropriate, and that they liked being informed about who was using their data for what purposes, as well as about outcomes of the research.ConclusionThis study suggests that a tiered electronic informed consent system is a workable solution that respects patient preferences, increases satisfaction, and does not significantly affect participation in research.
| S-EPMC5391727 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Currently, many initiatives are devoted to optimizing informed consent for participation in clinical research. Due to the digital transformation in health care, a shift toward electronic informed consent (eIC) has been fostered. However, empirical evidence on how to implement eIC in clinical research involving neonates is lacking. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 health care professionals active in Belgium or the Netherlands. All health care professionals had experience in conducting clinical research involving neonates. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using the framework method. Results: Interviewees generally supported the use of eIC in clinical research involving neonates. For example, eIC could enable parents to receive study feedback via the eIC system. Requirements were expressed for parental involvement to decide on which feedback would be appropriate to return. Moreover, experts specialized in presenting information and designing electronic systems should be involved. Broad consensus among health care professionals indicates that the face-to-face-interaction between parents and the research team is vital to establish a relationship of trust. Therefore, it is necessary that the use of eIC runs alongside personal interactions with the parents. Concerns were raised about the accessibility of eIC to parents. For this reason, it was suggested that parents should always be given the possibility to read and sign a paper-based informed consent form or to use eIC. Conclusions: Health care professionals' views indicate that the use of eIC in clinical research with neonates may offer various opportunities. Further development and implementation will require a multi-stakeholder approach.
| S-EPMC8441012 | biostudies-literature