Dataset Information

Improved parental understanding by an enhanced informed consent form: a randomized controlled study nested in a paediatric drug trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:This study was designed to evaluate the applicability and effectiveness of the enhanced informed consent form (ICF) methodology, proposed by the Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review (SIDCER), in paediatric research requiring parental consent. The objective of this study was to compare the parental understanding of information between the parents who read the SIDCER ICF and those who read the conventional ICF. DESIGN:A prospective, randomized, controlled design. SETTING:Paediatric Outpatients Department, Phramongkutklao Hospital, Thailand. PARTICIPANTS:210 parents of children with thalassemia (age=35.6 ± 13.1 years). INTERVENTIONS:The parents were randomly assigned to read either the SIDCER ICF (n=105) or the conventional ICF (n=105) of a paediatric drug trial. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Parental understanding of trial information was determined using 24 scenario-based questions. The primary endpoint was the proportion of parents who obtained the understanding score of more than 80%, and the secondary endpoint was the total score. RESULTS:Forty-five parents (42.9%) in the SIDCER ICF group and 29 parents (27.6%) in the conventional ICF group achieved the primary endpoint (relative risk=1.552, 95% CI 1.061?to 2.270, p=0.021). The total score of the parents in the SIDCER ICF group was significantly higher than the conventional ICF group (18.07±3.71 vs 15.98±4.56, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS:The SIDCER ICF was found to be superior to the conventional ICF in improving parental understanding of trial information.

SUBMITTER: Koonrungsesomboon N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6887000 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improved parental understanding by an enhanced informed consent form: a randomized controlled study nested in a paediatric drug trial.

Koonrungsesomboon Nut N Traivaree Chanchai C Tiyapsane Charnunnut C Karbwang Juntra J

BMJ open 20191126 11

<h4>Objective</h4>This study was designed to evaluate the applicability and effectiveness of the enhanced informed consent form (ICF) methodology, proposed by the Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review (SIDCER), in paediatric research requiring parental consent. The objective of this study was to compare the parental understanding of information between the parents who read the SIDCER ICF and those who read the conventional ICF.<h4>Design</h4>A prospective, randomized, co ...[more]

PMID: 31772085

Similar Datasets

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:Background and objectiveObtaining informed consent in neonatal emergency research is challenging. The aim of this study was to assess parental perceptions of informed consent following participation in a clinical trial in neonatal emergency care.MethodsThis was a supplementary analysis of a randomised controlled trial comparing video and direct laryngoscopy for neonatal endotracheal intubation in the delivery room and neonatal intensive care unit. After obtaining informed consent for the clinical trial, parents were asked to answer a series of self-administered questions about their perceptions of clinical trial participation and the consent process. Informed consent had been given either before birth, after birth but before inclusion in the trial, or after inclusion in the trial.ResultsWe received responses from 33 mothers and 27 fathers (n = 60) of the 63 preterm and term infants who participated in the study. Fifty-three (89.8%, n = 59) parents agreed that infants should participate in clinical trials, and 51 (85%, n = 60) parents agreed that parents should be asked for informed consent. Fifty-three (89.8%, n = 59) parents felt that their infant's participation in this particular trial would be beneficial. Fifty-two (86.7%, n = 60) parents felt that the informed consent process was satisfactory. One parent (100%, n = 1) approached before birth, 23 parents (82.1%, n = 28) approached after birth but before enrolment and 26 (83.9%, n = 31) parents approached after enrolment were satisfied with the timing of the consent process. Eight (13.3%, n = 60) parents felt some pressure to provide informed consent. Of these, two (25%) were approached before enrolment and six (75%) were approached after enrolment.ConclusionParents valued their infant's participation in an emergency neonatal clinical trial and considered it important to be asked for consent. In this study, it seemed less important whether consent was obtained before or after the intervention. Future studies may need to investigate which form of consent is most acceptable to parents for the individual study in question.

Project description:BackgroundThe H2020 i-CONSENT project has developed a set of guidelines that offer ethical recommendations and practical tools aimed at making the informed consent process in clinical studies more comprehensive, tailored, and inclusive. An analysis of the appropriateness of some of its novel recommendations was carried out by a group of experts representing different stakeholders.MethodsAn adaptation of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to assess the level of agreement on the recommendations among 14 representatives of different stakeholders, including patients, regulators, investigators, ethics experts, and the pharmaceutical industry. The process included two rounds of rating and a virtual meeting.ResultsFifty-three recommendations were evaluated. After the first round, 34 recommendations were judged "appropriate"; 19 were judged "uncertain"; and none was judged "inappropriate". After the second round, 9 "uncertains" changed to "appropriate". All recommendations rated medians of 6.5-9 on a 1-9 scale (1 = "extremely inappropriate", 5 = "uncertain", 9 = "extremely appropriate"). The sections "General recommendations" and "Gender perspective during the consent process for clinical studies" showed the highest "uncertainty" rating. The four keys to improving the understanding of the ICP in clinical studies are to: (1) consider consent a two-way continuous interaction that begins at the first contact with the potential participant and continues until the end of the study; (2) improve investigators' communication skills; (3) co-create the information; and (4) use a layered approach, including information to compensate for the potential participant's possible lack of health literacy and a glossary of terms.ConclusionsThe RAND/UCLA method has demonstrated validity for assessing the appropriateness of recommendations in ethical guidelines. The recommendations of the i-CONSENT guidelines were mostly judged "appropriate" by all stakeholders involved in the informed consent process.

Project description:Background/aimsMany investigators have tested interventions to improve research participant understanding of information shared during the informed consent process, using a variety of methods and with mixed results. A valid criticism of most consent research is that studies are often conducted in simulated research settings rather than ongoing clinical studies. The present study rigorously tested two simple and easily adoptable strategies for presenting key consent information to participants eligible to enroll in six actual clinical trials (i.e. six parent studies).MethodsIn collaboration with the study team from each parent study, we developed two consent interventions: a fact sheet and an interview-style video. The content of each of the intervention was based on the information shared in the consent form approved for each parent study. Participants were randomized to the standard consent process, or to one of the two interventions. Once exposed to the assigned consent mode, participants were asked to complete an assessment of understanding. The study was powered to determine whether those exposed to the fact sheet or video performed better on the consent assessment compared to those exposed to the standard consent. We also assessed participant satisfaction with the consent process.ResultsA total of 284 participants were randomized to one of the three consent arms. Assessments of understanding were completed with a total of 273 participants from July 2017 to April 2019. Participants exposed to the video had better understanding scores compared to those exposed to the standard consent form process (p value = 0.020). Participants were more satisfied with the video when compared to the standard consent. Participants who received the fact sheet did not achieve higher overall understanding or satisfaction scores when compared to the standard consent process.ConclusionThis randomized study of two novel consent interventions across six different clinical trials demonstrated a statistically significant difference in participant understanding based on overall scores among those exposed to the video intervention compared to those exposed to the standard consent.

Dataset Information

Improved parental understanding by an enhanced informed consent form: a randomized controlled study nested in a paediatric drug trial.

Publications

Improved parental understanding by an enhanced informed consent form: a randomized controlled study nested in a paediatric drug trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets