Dataset Information

Consent to research participation: understanding and motivation among German pupils.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The EU's 2006 Paediatric Regulation aims to support authorisation of medicine for children, thus effectively increasing paediatric research. It is ethically imperative to simultaneously establish procedures that protect children's rights.

Method

This study endeavours (a) to evaluate whether a template consent form designed by the Standing Working Group of the German-Research-Ethics-Committees (AKEK) adequately informs adolescents about research participation, and (b) to investigate associated phenomena like therapeutic misconception and motives for research participation. In March 2016 a questionnaire study was conducted among 279 pupils (mean age 13.1 years) of a secondary school in northern Germany.

Results

A majority of participants showed a general good understanding of foundational research ethics concepts as understood from the AKEK consent form. Nevertheless, our data also suggests possible susceptibility to therapeutic misconception. Own health concerns and pro-social considerations were found to be significant motivational factors for participating in research, while anticipation of pain lessens likelihood of participation. Advice from trusted others is an important decisional influence, too. Furthermore, data security was found to be a relevant aspect of adolescents' decision-making process.

Conclusion

Bearing in mind adolescents' generally good understanding, we infer the lack of knowledge about medical research in general to be one source of therapeutic misconception. To further improve the quality of consent we propose a multi-staged approach whereby general research education is completed before an individual becomes a patient or potential participant. To the best of our knowledge this is the first German questionnaire-study addressing issues of informed consent in a large under-age sample.

SUBMITTER: Reetz J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8283995 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAn inability to successfully recruit participants into clinical research has consequences that negatively affect the conduct and reliability of research studies. Understanding facilitators of research participation, namely motives for participation and preferred research outcomes, may improve recruitment and retention of clinical trials related to chronic pain. The present study explored research participation facilitators among individuals with chronic pain and their association with demographic characteristics, pain-related characteristics, and factors related to future research engagement.MethodsIndividuals from Michigan who were 18 years or older and self-reported having chronic pain completed an online survey assessing motives for research participation and desired research outcomes. Analyses were conducted in three stages. First, we evaluated underlying factors of motives for participation and research outcome preferences using principal components analysis. Second, we classified individuals according to their patterns of facilitators using latent profile analysis. Finally, we evaluated differences between facilitator profiles in demographic characteristics, pain-related characteristics, and factors related to future research engagement using χ2 analyses and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests.ResultsThree components of motives for research participation were identified: social engagement/enjoyment; pain improvement/advancing science; and compensation. Three components of research outcome preferences were identified: co-occurring symptom reduction; behavior reduction modification; and pain and function improvement. Four potential patient-centered profiles utilizing these dimensions of facilitators were identified that had unique demographic characteristics, research participation willingness, and treatment interest.ConclusionsOur data provide a framework of motives and research outcome preferences that may inform recruitment and retention in chronic pain research. It also gives an indication of who may respond best to active or passive recruitment strategies that appeal to a given motive or preferred outcome. This information may be useful for improving recruitment and to monitor any potential biases in participant samples.

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.