Simulation Training to Improve Informed Consent and Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Sampling in Pediatric Trials
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Burckhardt B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7793942 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Informed consent is a process of communication between clinician and patient that results in the patient's decision about whether to undergo a specific intervention. However, patients often do not understand the risks, benefits, and alternatives, even after signing a consent form. METHODS:Mixed-methods pilot test of two Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) informed consent training modules implemented in four hospitals. Methods included staff and patient surveys, interviews, site visits, and pre- and posttests of the modules. RESULTS:A low proportion of clinicians reported using teach-back (40.0%) or high-quality decision aids (55.0%). Patients reported limited use of best practices, including being asked to teach-back (58.4%), having other options described (54.9%), viewing decision aids (37.4%), and finding the form very easy to understand (66.8%). Content of the training modules aligned well with identified deficiencies. Barriers to completing the modules included staff turnover, competing demands, and lack of accountability. Facilitators included committed champions with available time, motivation, and release time for staff to take modules. Knowledge increased for leaders (p?<0.05) and staff (p?<0.001) who completed the training modules. Hospitals reported the effects of piloting the modules included fostering dialogue and identifying opportunities for improvements, identifying and rectifying policy ambiguity and noncompliance, reinforcing the use of interpreter services, and using modules' strategies and tools to improve informed consent. CONCLUSION:Many opportunities exist for hospitals to improve their informed consent practices. AHRQ's two training modules, have face validity, addressed demonstrated deficiencies in hospitals' informed consent policies and processes, and stimulated improvement activity in motivated hospitals.
| S-EPMC6022821 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8422487 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We previously investigated novel therapies for pediatric ependymoma and found 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) i.v. bolus increased survival in a representative mouse model. However, without a quantitative framework to derive clinical dosing recommendations, we devised a translational pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) modeling and simulation approach. Results from our preclinical PK-PD model suggested tumor concentrations exceeded the 1-hour target exposure (in vitro IC90), leading to tumor growth delay and increased survival. Using an adult population PK model, we scaled our preclinical PK-PD model to children. To select a 5-FU dosage for our clinical trial in children with ependymoma, we simulated various 5-FU dosages for tumor exposures and tumor growth inhibition, as well as considering tolerability to bolus 5-FU administration. We developed a pediatric population PK model of bolus 5-FU and simulated tumor exposures for our patients. Simulations for tumor concentrations indicated that all patients would be above the 1-hour target exposure for antitumor effect.
| S-EPMC4834132 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo develop a core outcome set for the evaluation of interventions that aim to improve how people make decisions about whether to participate in randomized controlled trials (of healthcare interventions), the ELICIT Study.Study designInternational mixed-method study involving a systematic review of existing outcomes, semi-structured interviews, an online Delphi survey, and a face-to-face consensus meeting.ResultsThe literature review and stakeholder interviews (n = 25) initially identified 1045 reported outcomes that were grouped into 40 individually distinct outcomes. These 40 outcomes were scored for importance in two rounds of an online Delphi survey (n = 79), with 18 people attending the consensus meeting. Consensus was reached on 12 core outcomes: therapeutic misconception; comfort with decision; authenticity of decision; communication about the trial; empowerment; sense of altruism; equipoise; knowledge; salience of questions; understanding, how helpful the process was for decision making; and trial attrition.ConclusionThe ELICIT core outcome set is the first internationally agreed minimum set of outcomes deemed essential to be measured in all future studies evaluating interventions to improve decisions about participating in an randomized controlled trial. Use of the ELICIT core set will ensure that results from these trials are comparable and relevant to all stakeholders.RegistrationCOMET database - http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/595.
| S-EPMC8485845 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There are complex ethical dilemmas inherent to medicine teaching, particularly in clinical practice involving actual patients. Questions must be raised on fulfilling medical students' training needs while still respecting patients' fundamental rights to autonomy and privacy. We aimed to assess patients' perspectives regarding medical students' involvement in their medical care. An observational, cross-sectional study was developed, and a questionnaire was applied randomly to patients waiting for a consultation/admitted to three distinct departments: General Surgery, Obstetrics/Gynaecology, and Infectious Diseases. Of the 77% interviewed patients who reported previous experiences with medical students, only 59% stated that they were asked for consent for their participation, and 28% stated that students had adequately introduced themselves. Patients from Gynaecology/Obstetrics were the ones who reported lower rates of these practices and were also the ones who were most bothered by students' presence, stating that they would be more comfortable without the presence of medical students. Male patients received more explanations than female patients regarding the same matters. Thirty-five percent of patients stated that they would feel more comfortable without the medical students' presence. The study shows a need to pay closer attention to fulfilling patients' fundamental rights.
| S-EPMC9265405 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The 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.This 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.Overall, 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.As 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-other
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:In a cluster randomised trial (CRT), intact groups-such as communities, clinics or schools-are randomised to the study intervention or control conditions. The issue of informed consent in CRTs has been particularly challenging for researchers and research ethics committees. Some argue that cluster randomisation is a reason not to seek informed consent from research participants. In fact, systematic reviews have found that, relative to individually randomised trials, CRTs are associated with an increased likelihood of inadequate reporting of consent procedures and inappropriate use of waivers of consent. The objective of this paper is to clarify this confusion by providing a practical and useful framework to guide researchers and research ethics committees through consent issues in CRTs. In CRTs, it is the unit of intervention-not the unit of randomisation-that drives informed consent issues. We explicate a three-step framework for thinking through informed consent in CRTs: (1) identify research participants, (2) identify the study element(s) to which research participants are exposed, and (3) determine if a waiver of consent is appropriate for each study element. We then apply our framework to examples of CRTs of cluster-level, professional-level and individual-level interventions, and provide key lessons on informed consent for each type of CRT.
| S-EPMC8477335 | 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:INTRODUCTION:The 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. METHODS:A 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. RESULTS:The 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. CONCLUSIONS:This 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