An international core outcome set for evaluating interventions to improve informed consent to clinical trials: The ELICIT Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To 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 design
International mixed-method study involving a systematic review of existing outcomes, semi-structured interviews, an online Delphi survey, and a face-to-face consensus meeting.Results
The 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.Conclusion
The 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.Registration
COMET database - http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/595.
SUBMITTER: Gillies K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8485845 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:The concept of informed consent is fundamental to medical practice. Shortcomings in the process can lead to patient complaints, litigation, unmet expectations and poor outcomes. Consent research has focused on developing tools to improve patient recall and understanding. However, the definitions, methods of measurement and timing of measurement vary widely across the studies that have been done. Although a Cochrane review has reported that many of these interventions appear to work, the high level of heterogeneity in outcome reporting prevents the identification of those interventions that work best and why they do so. It is also not clear which outcomes are most important to each party involved in the consent process and why. METHODS/DESIGN:This project will develop a core outcome set for assessing the effects of interventions aimed at improving informed consent for surgery and other invasive procedures for adult patients with the capacity to consent for themselves. We will conduct a systematic review of the qualitative and quantitative literature to identify outcomes used to date in consent research and map these into domains. A series of semi-structured key stakeholder interviews will also be used to identify relevant outcomes. These processes will produce a list of potential outcomes for assessing the effects of interventions to improve consent, which will be refined through an international Delphi survey and consensus webinars involving key stakeholders to produce the core outcome set. DISCUSSION:The ICONS study aims to develop a core outcome set for use in trials and reviews of interventions designed to improve the informed consent process for surgery and other invasive procedures. Our aim is that this core outcome set will reduce the level of selection and reporting bias in consent research and help clinicians to compare tools to improve consent.
| S-EPMC6220506 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Pediatric trials to add missing data for evidence-based pharmacotherapy are still scarce. A tailored training concept appears to be a promising tool to cope with critical and complex situations before enrolling the very first patient and subsequently to ensure high-quality study conduct. The aim was to facilitate study success by optimizing the preparedness of the study staff shift. Method: An interdisciplinary faculty developed a simulation training focusing on the communication within the informed consent procedure and the conduct of the complex pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) sampling within a simulation facility. Scenarios were video-debriefed by an audio-video system and manikins with artificial blood simulating patients were used. The training was evaluated by participants' self-assessment before and during trial recruitment. Results: The simulation training identified different optimization potentials for improved informed consent process and study conduct. It facilitated the reduction of avoidable errors, especially in the early phase of a clinical study. The knowledge gained through the intervention was used to train the study teams, improve the team composition and optimize the on-ward setting for the FP-7 funded "LENA" project (grant agreement no. 602295). Self-perceived ability to communicate core elements of the trial as well as its correct performance of sample preparation increased significantly (mean, 95% CI, p ≤ 0.0001) from 3 (2.5-3.5) to four points (4.0-4.5), and from 2 (1.5-2.5) to five points (4.0-5.0). Conclusion: An innovative training concept to optimize the informed consent process and study conduct was successfully developed and enabled high-quality conduct of the pediatric trials as of the very first patient visit.
| S-EPMC7793942 | 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:BackgroundTrials of interventions to prevent or treat delirium in adults in an acute hospital setting report heterogeneous outcomes. Our objective was to develop international consensus among key stakeholders for a core outcome set (COS) for future trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in adults with an acute care hospital admission and not admitted to an intensive care unit.MethodsA rigorous COS development process was used including a systematic review, qualitative interviews, modified Delphi consensus process, and in-person consensus using nominal group technique (registration http://www.comet - initiative.org/studies/details/796 ). Participants in qualitative interviews were delirium survivors or family members. Participants in consensus methods comprised international representatives from three stakeholder groups: researchers, clinicians, and delirium survivors and family members.ResultsItem generation identified 8 delirium-specific outcomes and 71 other outcomes from 183 studies, and 30 outcomes from 18 qualitative interviews, including 2 that were not extracted from the systematic review. De-duplication of outcomes and formal consensus processes involving 110 experts including researchers (N = 32), clinicians (N = 63), and delirium survivors and family members (N = 15) resulted in a COS comprising 6 outcomes: delirium occurrence and reoccurrence, delirium severity, delirium duration, cognition, emotional distress, and health-related quality of life. Study limitations included exclusion of non-English studies and stakeholders and small representation of delirium survivors/family at the in-person consensus meeting.ConclusionsThis COS, endorsed by the American and Australian Delirium Societies and European Delirium Association, is recommended for future clinical trials evaluating delirium prevention or treatment interventions in adults presenting to an acute care hospital and not admitted to an intensive care unit.
| S-EPMC8211534 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient understanding in clinical informed consent is often poor. Little is known about the effectiveness of interventions to improve comprehension or the extent to which such interventions address different elements of understanding in informed consent.Purpose. To systematically review communication interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent for medical and surgical procedures. Data Sources. A systematic literature search of English-language articles in MEDLINE (1949-2008) and EMBASE (1974-2008) was performed. In addition, a published bibliography of empirical research on informed consent and the reference lists of all eligible studies were reviewed. Study Selection. Randomized controlled trials and controlled trials with nonrandom allocation were included if they compared comprehension in informed consent for a medical or surgical procedure. Only studies that used a quantitative, objective measure of understanding were included. All studies addressed informed consent for a needed or recommended procedure in actual patients. Data Extraction. Reviewers independently extracted data using a standardized form. All results were compared, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Data Synthesis. Forty-four studies were eligible. Intervention categories included written information, audiovisual/multimedia, extended discussions, and test/feedback techniques. The majority of studies assessed patient understanding of procedural risks; other elements included benefits, alternatives, and general knowledge about the procedure. Only 6 of 44 studies assessed all 4 elements of understanding. Interventions were generally effective in improving patient comprehension, especially regarding risks and general knowledge. Limitations. Many studies failed to include adequate description of the study population, and outcome measures varied widely.Conclusions. A wide range of communication interventions improve comprehension in clinical informed consent. Decisions to enhance informed consent should consider the importance of different elements of understanding, beyond procedural risks, as well as feasibility and acceptability of the intervention to clinicians and patients. Conceptual clarity regarding the key elements of informed consent knowledge will help to focus improvements and standardize evaluations.
| S-EPMC5419590 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background. Patient comprehension is fundamental to valid informed consent. Current practices often result in inadequate patient comprehension. Purpose. An updated review to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of interventions to improve patient comprehension in clinical informed consent. Data Sources. Systematic searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE (2008-2018). Study Selection. We included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials evaluating interventions to improve patient comprehension in clinical informed consent. Data Extraction. Reviewers independently abstracted data using a standardized form, comparing all results and resolving disagreements by consensus. Data Synthesis. Fifty-two studies of 60 interventions met inclusion criteria. Compared with standard informed consent, a statistically significant improvement in patient comprehension was seen with 43% (6/14) of written interventions, 56% (15/27) of audiovisual interventions, 67% (2/3) of multicomponent interventions, 85% (11/13) of interactive digital interventions, and 100% (3/3) of verbal discussion with test/feedback or teach-back interventions. Eighty-five percent of studies (44/52) evaluated patients' understanding of risks, 69% (41/52) general knowledge about the procedure, 35% (18/52) understanding of benefits, and 31% (16/52) understanding of alternatives. Participants' education level was reported heterogeneously, and only 8% (4/52) of studies examined effects according to health literacy. Most studies (79%, 41/52) did not specify participants' race/ethnicity. Limitations. Variation in interventions and outcome measures precluded conduct of a meta-analysis or calculation of mean effect size. Control group processes were variable and inconsistently characterized. Nearly half of studies (44%, 23/52) had a high risk of bias for the patient comprehension outcome. Conclusions. Interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent are heterogeneous. Interactive interventions, particularly with test/feedback or teach-back components, appear superior. Future research should emphasize all key elements of informed consent and explore effects among vulnerable populations.
| S-EPMC7079202 | biostudies-literature
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:The increased international sharing of data in research consortia and the introduction of new technologies for sequencing challenge the informed consent (IC) process, adding complexities that require coordination between research centres worldwide. Rare disease consortia present special challenges since available data and samples may be very limited. Thus, it is especially relevant to ensure the best use of available resources but at the same time protect patients' right to integrity. To achieve this aim, there is an ethical duty to plan in advance the best possible consent procedure in order to address possible ethical and legal hurdles that could hamper research in the future. Therefore, it is especially important to identify key core elements (CEs) to be addressed in the IC documents for international collaborative research in two different situations: (1) new research collections (biobanks and registries) for which information documents can be created according to current guidelines and (2) established collections obtained without IC or with a previous consent that does not cover all CEs. We propose here a strategy to deal with consent in these situations. The principles have been applied and are in current practice within the RD-Connect consortia - a global research infrastructure funded by the European Commission Seventh Framework program but forward looking in terms of issues addressed. However, the principles established, the lessons learned and the implications for future research are of direct relevance to all internationally collaborative rare-disease projects.
| S-EPMC4989211 | 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