Dataset Information

Transparency of informed consent in pilot and feasibility studies is inadequate: a single-center quality assurance study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pilot and feasibility studies (PAFS) often have complex objectives aimed at assessing feasibility of conducting a larger study. These may not be clear to participants in pilot studies.

Methods

Here, we aimed to assess the transparency of informed consent in PAFS by investigating whether researchers communicate, through patient information leaflets and consent forms, key features of the studies. We collected this data from original versions of these documents submitted for ethics approval and the final approved documents for PAFS submitted to the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board, Canada.

Results

One hundred eighty-four PAFS, submitted for ethics approval from 2004 to 2020, were included, and we found that of the approved consent documents which were provided to participants, 83.2% (153) stated the terms "pilot" or "feasibility" in their title, 12% (22) stated the definition of a pilot/feasibility study, 42.4% (78) of the studies stated their intent to assess feasibility, 19.6% (36) stated the specific feasibility objectives, 1.6% (3) stated the criteria for success of the pilot study, and 0.5% (1) stated all five of these criteria. After ethics review, a small increase in transparency occurred, ranging from 1.6 to 2.8% depending on the criteria. By extracting data from the protocols of the PAFS, we found that 73.9% (136) stated intent to assess feasibility, 71.2% (131) stated specific feasibility objectives, and 33.7% (62) stated criteria for success of the study to lead to a larger study.

Conclusion

The transparency of informed consent in PAFS is inadequate and needs to be specifically addressed by research ethics guidelines. Research ethics boards and researchers ought to be made aware and mindful of best practices of informed consent in the context of PAFS.

SUBMITTER: Khan MIU

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8051114 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:IntroductionDoctors have a legal requirement and duty of care to ensure patients are enabled to make an informed decision about their treatment, including discussion of the benefits, risks and alternatives to a procedure. A patient-centred approach to consent has been firmly established in Ireland, and fundamental to this is the ability to engage in a dialogue that offers comprehensible information to patients. Telemedicine has revolutionised the way we can deliver care to patients in the modern era of computers, tablets, and smartphones, and its use has been rapidly expanded. Novel digital strategies to improve the informed consent process for surgical procedures have been increasingly under investigation over the last 10-15 years and may offer a low cost, accessible and tailored solution to consent for surgical interventions. Within vascular surgery, superficial venous interventions have been associated with a high number medicolegal claims and also represents an area within the specialty with rapidly evolving technology and techniques. The ability to communicate comprehensible information to patients has never been greater. Thus, the author's aim is to explore whether it is feasible and acceptable to deliver a digital health education intervention to patients undergoing endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA) to supplement the consent process.MethodsThis is a prospective, single centre, randomised controlled, feasibility trial recruiting patients with chronic venous disease deemed suitable to undergo EVTA. Patients will be randomised to receive either standard consent (SC) or a newly developed digital health education tool (dHET). The primary outcome is feasibility; assessing the recruitment and retention rate of participants and assessing acceptability of the intervention. Secondary outcomes include knowledge retention, anxiety and satisfaction. This feasibility trial is designed to recruit 40 patients, which will allow for a moderate dropout rate. This pilot study will inform the authors of the appropriateness of an adequately powered multicentre trial.DiscussionTo examine the role of a digital consent solution for EVTA. This may improve and standardise the consent dialogue with patients and may have the potential to reduce claims related to poor consent processes and disclosure of risks.Ethical committee referenceEthical approval has been sought and received from both the Bon Secours Hospital and RCSI (202109017), on 14 May 2021 and 10 October 2021, respectively.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05261412 , registered on 1 March 2022.

Project description:BackgroundWe sought to perform a study to record and evaluate patients' views of the way surgeons communicate informed consent (IC) in Greece.Methodology/principal findingsA prospective pilot study was carried out in Athens from 9/2007 to 4/2008. The study sample was extracted from patients, operated by eight different surgeons, who volunteered to fill in a post-surgery self-report questionnaire on IC. A composite delivered information index and a patient-physician relationship index were constructed for the purposes of the analysis. In total, 77 patients (42 males) volunteered to respond to the questionnaire. The delivered information index scores ranged from 3 to 10, the mean score was 8, and the standard deviation (SD) was 1.9. All patients were aware of their underlying diagnosis and reason for surgery. However, a considerable proportion of the respondents (14.3%) achieved a score below or equal to 5. The patient-physician relationship scores ranged from 0 to 20, the mean score was 16 and the standard deviation (SD) was 4.3. The better the patient-physician relationship, the more information was finally delivered to the patient from the physician (Spearman's rank-order correlation coefficient was 0.4 and p<0.001). Delivered information index was significantly higher among participants who comprehended the right to informed consent, compared to participants who did not (p<0.001), and among participants who were given information regarding other possible therapeutic options (p = 0.001). 43% of the respondents answered that less than 10 minutes were spent on the consent process, 58.4% of patients stated that they had not been informed about other possible therapeutic choices and 28.6% did not really comprehend their legal rights to IC.ConclusionsDespite the inherent limitations and the small sample size that do not permit to draw any firm conclusions, results indicate that a successful IC process may be associated with specific elements such as the patient-physician relationship, the time spent by the physician to inform the patient, a participant's comprehension of the right to IC and the provision of information regarding other possible therapeutic options.

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:ObjectivesTo investigate the extent to which authors of cluster randomised trials adhered to two basic requirements of the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' uniform requirements for manuscripts (namely, reporting of research ethics review and informed consent), to determine whether the adequacy of reporting has improved over time, and to identify characteristics of cluster randomised trials associated with reporting of ethics practices.DesignReview of a random sample of published cluster randomised trials from an electronic search in Medline.SettingCluster randomised trials in health research published in English language journals from 2000 to 2008. Study sample 300 cluster randomised trials published in 150 journals.Results77 (26%, 95% confidence interval 21% to 31%) trials failed to report ethics review. The proportion reporting ethics review increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report ethics review than were trials that used routine data sources only (79% (n=151) v 55% (23); P=0.008). Trials that accounted for clustering in the design and analysis were more likely to report ethics review. The median impact factor of the journal of publication was higher for trials that reported ethics review (3.4 v 2.3; P<0.001). 93 (31%, 26% to 36%) trials failed to report consent. Reporting of consent increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with interventions targeting participants at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were trials with interventions targeting the cluster level (87% (90) v 48% (41); P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were those that used routine data sources only (78% (146) v 29% (11); P<0.001).ConclusionsReporting of research ethics protections in cluster randomised trials is inadequate. In addition to research ethics approval, authors should report whether informed consent was sought, from whom consent was sought, and what consent was for.