Informed consent in cluster randomised trials: a guide for the perplexed.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Nix HP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8477335 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC3092521 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC1121908 | 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: Not available
| S-EPMC4117650 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recruitment to cancer clinical trials needs to be improved, as does patient knowledge and understanding about clinical trials, in order for patients to make an informed choice about whether or not to take part. Audiovisual patient information (AVPI) has been shown to improve knowledge and understanding in various areas of practice, but there is limited information about its effect in the cancer clinical trial setting, particularly in relation to consent rates. In this study, 173 patients were randomised to receive either the AVPI, in addition to the standard trial-specific written information, or the written information alone. There was no difference in clinical trial recruitment rates between the two groups with similar study entry rates: 72.1% in the AVPI group and 75.9% in the standard information group. The estimated odds ratio for refusal (intervention/no intervention) was 1.19 (95% CI 0.55-2.58, P=0.661). Knowledge scores increased more in the AVPI group compared to the standard group (P=0.0072). The change in anxiety score between the arms was also statistically significant (P=0.011) with anxiety improving in the intervention arm more than in the no intervention arm. Audiovisual patient information was shown to be a useful tool in improving patient knowledge and anxiety, but further work is necessary in relation to its effect on clinical trial recruitment rates.
| S-EPMC2360384 | 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:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsOverall, 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.ConclusionsAs 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-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:IntroductionThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThis 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
Project description:BACKGROUND: Although guidelines for the care of the dying patient exist the evidence base to support the guidelines is poor. Some of the factors contributing to this include failure to recruit to trials, protective healthcare professionals and subsequent attrition from trials due to the death of the patients. Recent studies report favourably on the use of cluster randomisation as an appropriate methodology for use in this patient group. METHODS/DESIGN: A feasibility study, exploring two types of randomisation as appropriate methodology for trials involving dying patients. Cluster randomisation and randomised consent will be utilised following a crossover design at two sites, one oncology ward and one Macmillan unit within the Northwest Wales NHS Trust. All patients commencing on the Integrated Care Pathway (ICP) for the Last Days of Life will be eligible for inclusion in the study. Using the hypothesis that it is not necessary to prescribe an anti-emetic medication when setting up a syringe driver for the dying patient, the study will evaluate different models of research methodology. DISCUSSION: The identification of the most appropriate methodology for use in studies concerning this patient group will inform the development of future clinical studies. Furthermore, the outcomes of this feasibility study will inform the development, of a proposal seeking funding for Wales-wide trials in palliative care. The identification of an appropriate methodology will provide a starting point for the establishment of a robust evidence base for the care of the dying patient.
| S-EPMC420454 | biostudies-literature