Dataset Information

An instrument for assessing the quality of informed consent documents for elective procedures: development and testing.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To develop a nationally applicable tool for assessing the quality of informed consent documents for elective procedures. DESIGN:Mixed qualitative-quantitative approach. SETTING:Convened seven meetings with stakeholders to obtain input and feedback on the tool. PARTICIPANTS:Team of physician investigators, measure development experts, and a working group of nine patients and patient advocates (caregivers, advocates for vulnerable populations and patient safety experts) from different regions of the country. INTERVENTIONS:With stakeholder input, we identified elements of high-quality informed consent documents, aggregated into three domains: content, presentation and timing. Based on this comprehensive taxonomy of key elements, we convened the working group to offer input on the development of an abstraction tool to assess the quality of informed consent documents in three phases: (1) selecting the highest-priority elements to be operationalised as items in the tool; (2) iteratively refining and testing the tool using a sample of qualifying informed consent documents from eight hospitals; and (3) developing a scoring approach for the tool. Finally, we tested the reliability of the tool in a subsample of 250 informed consent documents from 25 additional hospitals. OUTCOMES:Abstraction tool to evaluate the quality of informed consent documents. RESULTS:We identified 53 elements of informed consent quality; of these, 15 were selected as highest priority for inclusion in the abstraction tool and 8 were feasible to measure. After seven cycles of iterative development and testing of survey items, and development and refinement of a training manual, two trained raters achieved high item-level agreement, ranging from 92% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS:We identified key quality elements of an informed consent document and operationalised the highest-priority elements to define a minimum standard for informed consent documents. This tool is a starting point that can enable hospitals and other providers to evaluate and improve the quality of informed consent.

SUBMITTER: Spatz ES

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7247404 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An instrument for assessing the quality of informed consent documents for elective procedures: development and testing.

Spatz Erica S ES Suter Lisa G LG George Elizabeth E Perez Mallory M Curry Leslie L Desai Vrunda V Bao Haikun H Geary Lori L LL Herrin Jeph J Lin Zhenqiu Z Bernheim Susannah M SM Krumholz Harlan M HM

BMJ open 20200519 5

<h4>Objective</h4>To develop a nationally applicable tool for assessing the quality of informed consent documents for elective procedures.<h4>Design</h4>Mixed qualitative-quantitative approach.<h4>Setting</h4>Convened seven meetings with stakeholders to obtain input and feedback on the tool.<h4>Participants</h4>Team of physician investigators, measure development experts, and a working group of nine patients and patient advocates (caregivers, advocates for vulnerable populations and patient safe ...[more]

PMID: 32434933

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine whether informed consent for surgical procedures performed in US hospitals meet a minimum standard of quality, we developed and tested a quality measure of informed consent documents. DESIGN:Retrospective observational study of informed consent documents. SETTING:25 US hospitals, diverse in size and geographical region. COHORT:Among Medicare fee-for-service patients undergoing elective procedures in participating hospitals, we assessed the informed consent documents associated with these procedures. We aimed to review 100 qualifying procedures per hospital; the selected sample was representative of the procedure types performed at each hospital. PRIMARY OUTCOME:The outcome was hospital quality of informed consent documents, assessed by two independent raters using an eight-item instrument previously developed for this measure and scored on a scale of 0-20, with 20 representing the highest quality. The outcome was reported as the mean hospital document score and the proportion of documents meeting a quality threshold of 10. Reliability of the hospital score was determined based on subsets of randomly selected documents; face validity was assessed using stakeholder feedback. RESULTS:Among 2480 informed consent documents from 25 hospitals, mean hospital scores ranged from 0.6 (95% CI 0.3 to 0.9) to 10.8 (95% CI 10.0 to 11.6). Most hospitals had at least one document score at least 10 out of 20 points, but only two hospitals had >50% of their documents score above a 10-point threshold. The Spearman correlation of the measures score was 0.92. Stakeholders reported that the measure was important, though some felt it did not go far enough to assess informed consent quality. CONCLUSION:All hospitals performed poorly on a measure of informed consent document quality, though there was some variation across hospitals. Measuring the quality of hospital's informed consent documents can serve as a first step in driving attention to gaps in quality.

Project description:One undisputed benefit of digital support is the possibility of contact reduction, which has become particularly important in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is currently no study assessing the Europe-wide use of digital online pre-operative patient information or evaluation in the health sector. The aim of this study was to give an overview of the current status in Europe. A web-based questionnaire covering the informed consent process was sent to members of the European Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (ESAIC) in 47 European countries (42,433 recipients/930 responses). Six questions related specifically to the practice in paediatrics. A total of 70.2% of the respondents indicated that it was not possible to obtain informed consent via the Internet in a routine setting, and 67.3% expressed that they did not know whether it is in line with the legal regulations. In paediatric anaesthesia, the informed consent of only one parent was reported to be sufficient by 77.6% of the respondents for simple interventions and by 63.8% for complex interventions. Just over 50% of the respondents judged that proof of identity of the parents was necessary, but only 29.9% stated that they ask for it in clinical routine. In the current situation, 77.9% would favour informed consent in person, whereas 60.2% could imagine using online or telephone interviews as an alternative to a face-to-face meeting if regulations were changed. Only 18.7% participants reported a change in the regulations due to the current pandemic situation. Whether informed consent is obtained either online or on the telephone in the paediatric population varies widely across Europe and is not currently implemented as standard practice. For high-risk patients, such as the specific cohort of children with congenital heart defects, wider use of telemedicine might provide a benefit in the future in terms of reduced contact and reduced exposure to health risks through additional hospital stays.

Project description:BackgroundInformed consent documents for clinical studies should disclose all reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits. Little guidance exists on how to navigate the complexities of risk-benefit communication, especially in early clinical research. Practice-oriented development of such guidance should be informed by evidence on what and how details of risks and benefits are currently communicated.MethodWe surveyed the responsible parties of phase I/II trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov that started 2007 or later and completed between 2012 and 2016 to sample informed consent documents from a broad spectrum of early phase clinical trials. Based on an assessment matrix, we qualitatively and quantitatively assessed the informed consent documents for details of risk-benefit communication.ResultsThe risk-benefit communication in the 172 informed consent documents differed substantially in several regards. The outcome, extent, and likelihood of health risks, for example, were described in 83%, 32%, and 63% of the informed consent documents. Only 45% of informed consent documents specified the outcome of mentioned health benefits, and the extent and likelihood of health benefits were never specified. From those informed consent documents reporting risk likelihoods, only 57% added frequency numbers to words such as "common" or "rare," and even in these cases, we found strong variations for presented frequency ranges. Substantial heterogeneity also exists for how informed consent documents communicate other risk and benefit types and related safeguards.ConclusionOur study points to several shortcomings and heterogeneities in how informed consent documents communicate risks and benefits to potential research participants. Health risks, for example, should be specified with frequency numbers, and health benefits should be specified at least by mentioning their outcomes. Further demand for research and policy development is needed to harmonize risk-benefit communication and to clarify ways to specify the likelihood of health benefits.

Project description:ImportanceInformed consent is a fundamental element of research ethics. The COVID-19 vaccine trials are high profile trials that have enrolled more than 100 000 participants. Consent documents must be succinct and understandable to ensure informed voluntary participation.ObjectiveTo assess how well informed consent documents of the COVID-19 vaccine trials achieve the ideal of being succinct and understandable, and to create a shorter, more readable document.Design, setting, and participantsThis quality improvement study collected and analyzed the informed consent documents used in 4 COVID-19 vaccine phase III randomized clinical trials to quantitatively assess readability and length and, based on this analysis, created a measurably more accessible informed consent document. Analysis was conducted from October 2020 to January 2021.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were number of words (measured as word count), time-to-read (measured at reading speeds of 175-300 words per minute), language complexity (measured using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level assessment), and readability (measured using Flesch Reading Ease Score). Secondary outcomes included clarity of how the placebo group could access the vaccine if it is proven safe and effective. The study also examined the length and readability of an improved consent document.ResultsThe 4 informed consent documents were a mean (range) of 8333 (7821 to 9340) words long, with a mean (range) 35 (32.6 to 38.9) minutes to read at 240 words per minute. All documents exceeded grade 9 language complexity and scored lower than 60 in the formal reading ease metric, which constitutes difficult. Only 1 document specified that participants in the placebo group might receive vaccine. It was possible to write a document in fewer than 3000 words with a grade 7 to 8 reading level and a formal readability score that was not difficult.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that existing COVID-19 vaccine informed consent documents were too long, difficult to read, and exceeded grade 9 in language complexity. It was possible to create a shorter, more readable informed consent document for these trials.

Project description:IntroductionPilot/feasibility studies assess the feasibility of conducting a larger study. Although researchers ought to communicate the feasibility objectives to their participants, many research ethics guidelines do not comment on how informed consent applies to pilot studies. It is unclear whether researchers and research ethics boards clearly communicate the purpose of pilot studies to participants consenting.The primary objective of this study is to assess whether pilot/feasibility studies submitted for ethics approval to a research ethics board transparently communicate the purpose of the study to participants through their informed consent practice. A highly transparent consent practice entails the consent documents communicate: (1) the term 'pilot' or 'feasibility' in the title; (2) the definition of a pilot/feasibility study; (3) the primary objectives of the study are to assess feasibility; (4) the specific feasibility objectives; and (5) the criteria for the study to successfully lead to the main study. The secondary objectives are to assess whether there is a difference between submitted and revised versions of the consent documents (revisions are made to obtain research ethics approval), to determine factors associated with transparent consent practices and to assess the consistency with which pilot and feasibility studies assess feasibility outcomes as their primary objectives.Methods and analysisThis is a retrospective review of informed consent information for pilot/feasibility studies submitted to the Hamilton integrated Research Ethics Board, Canada. We will look at submitted and revised consent documents for pilot/feasibility studies submitted over a 14-year period. We will use descriptive statistics to summarise data, reporting results as percentages with 95% CIs, and conduct logistic regression to determine characteristics associated with transparent consent practices.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved by the Hamilton integrated Research Ethics Board, and the results of this study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Project description:BackgroundHeart Healthy Lenoir is a transdisciplinary project aimed at creating long-term, sustainable approaches to reduce cardiovascular disease risk disparities in Lenoir County, North Carolina using a design spanning genomic analysis and clinical intervention. We hypothesized that residents of Lenoir County would be unfamiliar and mistrustful of genomic research, and therefore reluctant to participate; additionally, these feelings would be higher in African-Americans.MethodologyTo test our hypothesis, we conducted qualitative research using community-based participatory research principles to ensure our genomic research strategies addressed the needs, priorities, and concerns of the community. African-American (n = 19) and White (n = 16) adults in Lenoir County participated in four focus groups exploring perceptions about genomics and cardiovascular disease. Demographic surveys were administered and a semi-structured interview guide was used to facilitate discussions. The discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed in ATLAS.ti.Results and significanceFrom our analysis, key themes emerged: transparent communication, privacy, participation incentives and barriers, knowledge, and the impact of knowing. African-Americans were more concerned about privacy and community impact compared to Whites, however, African-Americans were still eager to participate in our genomic research project. The results from our formative study were used to improve the informed consent and recruitment processes by: 1) reducing misconceptions of genomic studies; and 2) helping to foster participant understanding and trust with the researchers. Our study demonstrates how community-based participatory research principles can be used to gain deeper insight into the community and increase participation in genomic research studies. Due in part to these efforts 80.3% of eligible African-American participants and 86.9% of eligible White participants enrolled in the Heart Healthy Lenoir Genomics study making our overall enrollment 57.8% African-American. Future research will investigate return of genomic results in the Lenoir community.

Dataset Information

An instrument for assessing the quality of informed consent documents for elective procedures: development and testing.

Publications

An instrument for assessing the quality of informed consent documents for elective procedures: development and testing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets