Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects

Reducing Health Disparities Among African American and Black Caribbean Patients by Improving the Communication Practices of Clinical Research Coordinators

This manuscript focuses on the communication factors that affect the willingness of African Americans and Black Caribbean patients to participate in clinical trials and research studies. Low rates of research participation by members of communities of color have long been linked to health disparities. While there are many factors that contribute to low rates of accrual of African American and Black patients to clinical trials, a lack of attention to communication factors that enhance or inhibit the recruitment process is central to the problem. In this study, we describe results from the analysis of six focus groups (N = 31) consisting of African American (k = 3) and Black Caribbean (k = 3) participants. Our analyses focus on verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors and how they affect participants' willingness to participate in clinical trials. Specifically, when clinical research coordinators (CRCs) had a professional appearance, made the effort to explain a study in detail, made eye contact, took the time to listen and answer questions patiently, and gave the sense that the CRC was being truthful and transparent, patients felt respected and valued. Additionally, participants emphasized the importance of the process of developing and maintaining a trusting relationship between study participants and CRCs. The results of this study will be used to develop a clinical trial communication training program designed to enhance the communication skills of clinical research coordinators who discuss research participation with African American and Caribbean Black patients.

Knowledge and awareness of clinical trials among trial participants in India: A multicentric questionnaire-based cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

The knowledge and attitude of participants toward clinical trials (CTs) are a key determinant in successful recruitment and retention. This study aimed to evaluate knowledge and awareness-attitude among the recruited CT participants about CTs.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional face-to-face survey comprising CT participants involved in the past or currently a part of a CT during this study within the Indian Ophthalmology Clinical Trial Network (IOCTN). A previously validated questionnaire was used, and data regarding demographics, knowledge, and awareness-attitude about CTs were collected. The total awareness-attitude score was used to determine the knowledge and awareness of the participants.

RESULTS

A total of 121 subjects had participated in the study who were part of ongoing trials, of which only five participants had prior experience of CTs. The majority (90%) had knowledge about CTs, whereas only 7% had confirmed signing consent forms. The total awareness-attitude score significantly varied across locations (27% for the southern zone, 53% for the central zone, and 52% for the western zone), and this was negatively associated with education. The most negative attitude (38.6%) was observed regarding adequate information sharing among participants, whereas non-disruption of their routine family life (60.7%) and financial stability (67.6%) were the top most positive attitudes revealed during their participation. The participants' pre- and post-participation attitude toward CTs revealed a positive attitude.

CONCLUSION

The factors influencing a participant's knowledge and attitudes toward CTs were revealed in the study. Furthermore, the need for awareness regarding benefits of CTs to the public, participant's rights, and their voluntary power were the major highlights.

Social Determinants of Health and Informed Consent Comprehension for Pediatric Cancer Clinical Trials

Importance

Ensuring valid informed consent (IC) prior to enrollment in clinical trials is a fundamental ethical right.

Objective

To assess whether social determinants of health (SDOH) and related sociocontextual factors are associated with parental IC comprehension in therapeutic childhood cancer clinical trials.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study prospectively enrolled 223 parents of children with newly diagnosed cancer at Rady Children's Hospital San Diego, a large quaternary academic center in California, from October 1, 2014, to March 31, 2021. Linear mixed effects models were used to assess whether IC comprehension overall and by domain (purpose, procedures, and randomization; risks and benefits; alternatives; and voluntariness) were associated with SDOH and sociocontextual factors. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2022, to July 31, 2023.

Exposures

Informed consent for a therapeutic childhood cancer clinical trial.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome of interest was IC comprehension and its associations with SDOH (marital status, language, educational attainment, employment, insurance type, socioeconomic status, and health literacy) and sociocontextual factors (ethnicity, satisfaction with informed consent, and cancer type).

Results

Of 223 parents, 172 (77.1%) were aged 18 to 44 years, 111 (49.8%) were Hispanic, 152 (68.2%) were women, and 163 (73.1%) were married. In terms of race, 2 (0.9%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 22 (9.9%) were Asian or Pacific Islander, 8 (3.6%) were Black, 149 (66.8%) were White, and 42 (18.8%) were more than 1 race. In multivariable linear mixed-effects analyses, limited vs adequate health literacy was associated with lower comprehension of informed consent overall (mean [SD], 68.28 [11.81] vs 79.24 [11.77]; β estimate, -9.02 [95% CI, -12.0 to -6.07]; P < .001) and with lower comprehension of the purpose, procedures, and randomization (mean [SD], 65.00 [12.64] vs 76.14 [11.53]; β estimate, -7.87 [95% CI, -10.9 to -4.85]; P < .001); risks and benefits (mean [SD], 62.84 [20.24] vs 73.14 [20.86]; β estimate, -10.1 [95% CI, -15.6 to -4.59]; P < .001); alternatives (mean [SD], 54.27 [43.18] vs 82.98 [34.24]; β estimate, -14.3 [95% CI, -26.1 to -2.62]; P  .02); and voluntariness (mean [SD], 76.52 [24.33] vs 95.39 [13.89]; β estimate, -9.14 [95% CI, -14.9 to -3.44]; P = .002) domains. Use of Spanish vs English language for medical communication was associated with lower comprehension overall (mean [SD], 66.45 [12.32] vs 77.25 [12.18]; β estimate, -5.30 [95% CI, -9.27 to -1.34]; P = .01) and with lower comprehension of the purpose, procedures, and randomization (mean [SD], 63.33 [11.98] vs 74.07 [12.52]; β estimate, -4.33 [95% CI, -8.43 to -0.23]; P = .04) and voluntariness (mean [SD], 70.83 [24.02] vs 92.54 [17.27]; β estimate, -9.69 [95% CI, -16.8 to -2.56]; P = .009) domains.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study including parents of children with newly diagnosed cancer who provided IC for their child's participation in a therapeutic clinical trial, limited health literacy and use of Spanish language for medical communication were associated with lower comprehension of IC. These findings suggest that, in this setting, parents with limited health literacy or those who use Spanish language for medical communication may not fully comprehend IC and therefore may not make truly informed decisions. These findings support the investigation of interventions, across pediatric disciplines, tailored to the participant's language and health literacy level to improve IC comprehension, particularly in racial and ethnic minority populations.

A randomized comparison of two-stage versus traditional one-stage consent for a low-stakes randomized trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

It has been proposed that informed consent for randomized trials should be split into two stages, with the purported advantage of decreased information overload and patient anxiety. We compared patient understanding, anxiety and decisional quality between two-stage and traditional one-stage consent.

METHODS

We approached patients at an academic cancer center for a low-stakes trial of a mind-body intervention for procedural distress during prostate biopsy. Patients were randomized to hear about the trial by either one- or two-stage consent (n = 66 vs n = 59). Patient-reported outcomes included Quality of Informed Consent (0-100); general and consent-specific anxiety and decisional conflict, burden, and regret.

RESULTS

Quality of Informed Consent scores were non-significantly superior for two-stage consent, by 0.9 points (95% confidence interval = -2.3, 4.2, p = 0.6) for objective and 1.1 points (95% CI = -4.8, 7.0, p = 0.7) for subjective understanding. Differences between groups for anxiety and decisional outcomes were similarly small. In a post hoc analysis, consent-related anxiety was lower among two-stage control patients, likely because scores were measured close to the time of biopsy in the two-stage patients receiving the experimental intervention.

CONCLUSION

Two-stage consent maintains patient understanding of randomized trials, with some evidence of lowered patient anxiety. Further research is warranted on two-stage consent in higher-stakes settings.

uConsent: Addressing the gap in measuring understanding of informed consent in clinical research

The purpose of this study was to establish the technical merit, feasibility, and generalizability of a new measure of understanding of informed consent for use with clinical research participants. A total of 109 teens/young adults at a large, pediatric medical center completed the consenting process of a hypothetical biobanking study. Data were analyzed using a combination of classical and modern theory analytic methods to produce a final set of 19 items referred to as the uConsent scale. A requirement of the scale was that each item mapped directly onto one or more of the Basic Elements of Informed Consent from the 2018 Final Rule. Descriptive statistics were computed for each item as well as the scale as a whole. Partial credit (Rasch) logistic modeling was then used to generate difficulty/endorsability estimates for each item. The final, 19-item uConsent scale was derived using inferential methods to yield a set of items that ranged across difficulty levels (-3.02 to 3.10 logits) with a range of point-measure correlations (0.12 to 0.50), within-range item- and model-fit statistics, varying item types mapped to both Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning and required regulatory components of the 2018 Final Rule. Median coverage rate for the uConsent scale was 95% for the 25 randomly selected studies from ClinicalTrials.gov. The uConsent scale may be used as an effective measure of informed consent when measuring and documenting participant understanding in clinical research studies today.

Parents' and adolescents' perspectives and understanding of information about childhood cancer precision medicine

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine is projected to become integral to childhood cancer care. As such, it is essential to support families to understand what precision medicine entails.

METHODS

A total of 182 parents and 23 adolescent patients participating in Precision Medicine for Children with Cancer (PRISM), an Australian precision medicine clinical trial for high-risk childhood cancer, completed questionnaires after study enrollment (time 0 [T0]). Of the parents, 108 completed a questionnaire and 45 completed an interview following return of precision medicine results (time 1 [T1]). We analyzed the mixed-methods data comprising measures exploring families' perceptions and understanding of PRISM's participant information sheet and consent form (PISCF), and factors associated with understanding.

RESULTS

Most parents were satisfied with the PISCF, rating it as at least "somewhat" clearly presented (n = 160/175; 91%) and informative (n = 158/175; 90%). Many suggested improvements including the use of clearer language and a more visually engaging format. Parents' actual understanding of precision medicine was low on average, but scores improved between T0 and T1 (55.8/100-60.0/100; p = .012). Parents from culturally and/or linguistically diverse backgrounds (n = 42/177; 25%) had lower actual understanding scores than those from a Western/European background whose first language was English (p = .010). There was little correlation between parents' perceived and actual understanding scores (p = .794; Pearson correlation -0.020; 95% CI, -0.169 to 0.116). Most adolescent patients read the PISCF either "briefly" or "not at all" (70%) and had a perceived understanding score of 63.6/100 on average.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed gaps in families' understanding of childhood cancer precision medicine. We highlighted areas for potential intervention such as through targeted information resources.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Precision medicine is projected to become part of the standard of care for children with cancer. Precision medicine aims to give the right treatment to the right patient and involves several complex techniques, many of which may be challenging to understand. Our study analyzed questionnaire and interview data from parents and adolescent patients enrolled in an Australian precision medicine trial. Findings revealed gaps in families' understanding of childhood cancer precision medicine. Drawing on parents' suggestions and the literature, we make brief recommendations about improving information provision to families, such as through targeted information resources.

Comparative Effectiveness of eConsent: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Providing informed consent means agreeing to participate in a clinical trial and having understood what is involved. Flawed informed consent processes, including missing dates and signatures, are common regulatory audit findings. Electronic consent (eConsent) uses digital technologies to enable the consenting process. It aims to improve participant comprehension and engagement with study information and to address data quality concerns.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic literature review aimed to assess the effectiveness of eConsent in terms of patient comprehension, acceptability, usability, and study enrollment and retention rates, as well as the effects of eConsent on the time patients took to perform the consenting process ("cycle time") and on-site workload in comparison with traditional paper-based consenting.

METHODS

The systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Ovid Embase and Ovid MEDLINE were systematically searched for publications reporting original, comparative data on the effectiveness of eConsent in terms of patient comprehension, acceptability, usability, enrollment and retention rates, cycle time, and site workload. The methodological validity of the studies that compared outcomes for comprehension, acceptability, and usability across paper consent and eConsent was assessed. Study methodologies were categorized as having "high" validity if comprehensive assessments were performed using established instruments.

RESULTS

Overall, 37 publications describing 35 studies (13,281 participants) were included. All studies comparing eConsenting and paper-based consenting for comprehension (20/35, 57% of the studies; 10 with "high" validity), acceptability (8/35, 23% of the studies; 1 with "high" validity), and usability (5/35, 14% of the studies; 1 with "high" validity) reported significantly better results with eConsent, better results but without significance testing, or no significant differences in overall results. None of the studies reported better results with paper than with eConsent. Among the "high" validity studies, 6 studies on comprehension reported significantly better understanding of at least some concepts, the study on acceptability reported statistically significant higher satisfaction scores, and the study on usability reported statistically significant higher usability scores with eConsent than with paper (P<.05 for all). Cycle times were increased with eConsent, potentially reflecting greater patient engagement with the content. Data on enrollment and retention were limited. Comparative data from site staff and other study researchers indicated the potential for reduced workload and lower administrative burden with eConsent.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review showed that compared with patients using paper-based consenting, patients using eConsent had a better understanding of the clinical trial information, showed greater engagement with content, and rated the consenting process as more acceptable and usable. eConsent solutions thus have the potential to enhance understanding, acceptability, and usability of the consenting process while inherently being able to address data quality concerns, including those related to flawed consenting processes.

The mediating effect of shared decision-making in enhancing patient satisfaction with participation in cancer clinical trials

Objective

The participation of patients with advanced cancer(s) in clinical trials is vital for new drug development. We aimed to investigate patients' decision-making processes and satisfaction with their decision (SWD) to participate; the study's purpose was to provide results that can help support high-quality research in clinical trials. In addition, we explored how shared decision-making (SDM) mediates the relationship between understanding informed consent forms and SWD to participate in a clinical trial.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted. A purposive sample of 111 cancer patients was recruited, and they completed a questionnaire on demographic characteristics, SDM, and decision-making satisfaction to participate in a clinical trial. Correlation and mediation analyses were used.

Results

Participants aged under 65 years and with higher education reported high SWDs, and SDM significantly mediated the relationship between self-assessed understanding of informed consent forms and SWDs related to clinical trials.

Conclusions

SDM in patients with lung or liver cancer was a significant mediator between understanding the informed consent form and the patient's SWD. The higher the SWD level of participating in clinical trials, the better study team members' SDM involvement and the better the comprehension of informed consent forms. In addition, patients' age and education level should also be considered as influencing factors in SWD. This survey is the first in Taiwan to examine SDM in drug-related clinical trials. The study results provide evidence to support SDM in a clinical trial model and develop informed consent process policies in research facilities.

Toward an open access genomics database of South Africans: ethical considerations

Genomics research holds the potential to improve healthcare. Yet, a very low percentage of the genomic data used in genomics research internationally relates to persons of African origin. Establishing a large-scale, open access genomics database of South Africans may contribute to solving this problem. However, this raises various ethics concerns, including privacy expectations and informed consent. The concept of open consent offers a potential solution to these concerns by (a) being explicit about the research participant's data being in the public domain and the associated privacy risks, and (b) setting a higher-than-usual benchmark for informed consent by making use of the objective assessment of prospective research participants' understanding. Furthermore, in the South African context-where local culture is infused with Ubuntu and its relational view of personhood-community engagement is vital for establishing and maintaining an open access genomics database of South Africans. The South African National Health Research Ethics Council is called upon to provide guidelines for genomics researchers-based on open consent and community engagement-on how to plan and implement open access genomics projects.

Informed consent in randomised controlled trials: further development and evaluation of the participatory and informed consent (PIC) measure

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is an accepted ethical and legal prerequisite for trial participation, yet there is no standardised method of assessing patient understanding for informed consent. The participatory and informed consent (PIC) measure was developed for application to recruitment discussions to evaluate recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding. Preliminary evaluation of the PIC indicated the need to improve inter-rater and intra-rater reliability ratings and conduct further psychometric evaluation. This paper describes the assessment, revision and evaluation of the PIC within the context of OPTiMISE, a pragmatic primary care-based trial.

METHODS

This study used multiple methods across two phases. In phase one, one researcher applied the existing PIC measure to 18 audio-recorded recruitment discussions from the OPTiMISE study and made detailed observational notes about any uncertainties in application. Appointments were sampled to be maximally diverse for patient gender, study centre, recruiter and before and after an intervention to optimise information provision. Application uncertainties were reviewed by the study team, revisions made and a coding manual developed and agreed. In phase two, the coding manual was used to develop tailored guidelines for applying the PIC to appointments within the OPTiMISE trial. Two researchers then assessed 27 further appointments, purposively sampled as above, to evaluate inter-rater and intra-rater reliability, content validity and feasibility.

RESULTS

Application of the PIC to 18 audio-recorded OPTiMISE recruitment discussions resulted in harmonisation of the scales rating recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding, minor amendments to clarify wording and the development of detailed generic coding guidelines for applying the measure within any trial. Application of the revised measure using these guidelines to 27 further recruitment discussions showed good feasibility (time to complete), content validity (completion rate) and reliability (inter- and intra-rater) of the measure.

CONCLUSION

The PIC provides a means to evaluate the content of information provided by recruiters, patient participation in recruitment discussions and, to some extent, evidence of patient understanding. Future work will use the measure to evaluate recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding both across and within trials.

Research participants may not recall their participation but have a better understanding of alternative management options than patients in routine care

BACKGROUND

Patient understanding of care interventions, of the clinical uncertainty, and of their participation in clinical research is often poor. We hypothesized that compared to routine care, patients would better understand the prevailing uncertainty when they participated in research.

METHODS

A questionnaire was administered to patients at the time they attended a follow-up neurovascular clinic 4 to 52 weeks after a care episode where they did or did not participate in a clinical trial. Patients were not reminded whether they had previously participated in a clinical trial. Questions concerned their understanding of the risks/benefits of interventions, the availability of alternative options, whether their personal opinion was taken into consideration, the reason for the final decision, their confidence at having received the best management, and whether they had been research participants.

RESULTS

Between June 2019 and June 2020, 167 patients were recruited; 71 had truly been research participants, while 96 had not. A greater proportion of research patients were aware of the existence of management alternatives (65% versus 44%; P=0.008). Patients of both groups believed their personal opinion counted in the final decision (76% versus 70%), and patients were equally confident that they had received the best management (94%). Research patients believed they had participated in research 46% of the time, compared to 12% of routine care patients (P=0.003).

CONCLUSION

Many patients do not recall that they participated in a clinical trial, but they have a better understanding of the clinical uncertainty and of the availability of alternative management options.

Informed Consent: Research Staff's Perspectives and Practical Recommendations to Improve Research Staff-Participant Communication

Informed consent (IC) is the process of communication between research staff and potential research participants. However, ensuring that participants clearly understand what research participation entails, raises significant challenges. The aim of this study is to provide insight into some communication barriers that research staff are confronted with and make practical recommendations to improve communication between research staff and participants. A qualitative research study using semi-structured interviews (n = 13) with research staff from Ghent University Hospital was conducted. Data were transcribed verbatim and coded thematically. Our results indicate that communication- and process-related factors affect the IC process. Emergent recommendations include communication training, more interactive information materials and the use of digital alternatives, increasing general knowledge about research participation and patient- and public involvement.

Fragmented understanding: exploring the practice and meaning of informed consent in clinical trials in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

BACKGROUND

The informed consent process in clinical trials has been extensively studied to inform the development processes which protect research participants and encourage their autonomy. However, ensuring a meaningful informed consent process is still of great concern in many research settings due to its complexity in practice and interwined socio-cultural factors.

OBJECTIVES

This study explored the practices and meaning of the informed consent process in two clinial trials conducted by Oxford University Clinical Research Unit in collaboration with the Hospital for Tropical Diseases in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

METHODS

We used multiple data collection methods including direct observervations, in-depth interviews with study physicians and trial participants, review of informed consent documents from 2009 to 2018, and participant observation with patients' family members. We recruited seven physicians and twenty-five trial participants into the study, of whom five physicians and thirteen trial participants completed in-depth interviews, and we held twenty-two direct observation sessions.

RESULTS

We use the concept "fragmented understanding" to describe the nuances of understanding about the consent process and unpack underlying reasons for differing understandings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show how practices of informed consent and different understanding of the trial information are shaped by trial participants' characteristics and the socio-cultural context in which the trials take place.

Evaluation of response to incentive recruitment strategies in a social media-based survey

Objective

This study aimed to examine varying incentives on acceptance to participate in an online survey on social media and to identify related demographic factors.

Methods

The study used Facebook and targeted its users aged 18 to 24 years in the United States. During recruitment, participants were randomized to one of the three types of incentives for survey completion, (1) a $5 gift card, (2) a lottery for a $200 gift card, and (3) a $5 gift card plus a lottery for a $200 gift card. Acceptance rates for survey participation were compared across three incentives using percentages, 95% logit-transformed confidence intervals, and Pearson's chi-squared tests. The survey asked about cognition and behaviors around smoking and vaping.

Results

The ads had 1,782,931 impressions, 1,104,139 reaches, and 11,878 clicks. The average ad frequency was 1.615, and the click-through rate was 0.67%. Males clicked less than females when seeing the ads. The acceptance rates for the three incentives were 63.7%, 37.2%, and 64.6%, respectively. A Chi-square test confirmed that the lottery-only group had a lower acceptance rate compared to those guaranteed an incentive, including the gift card group and the gift card and lottery group. Further analyses indicated that males did not opt into the survey as often as females when given the lottery-only incentive option, and those who did not meet their financial expenses opted into the survey more often than those who had more money than their expenses when given the lottery-only incentive option.

Conclusions

This study suggests that incentives guaranteed to all participants, even if the incentive's value is small, may lead to higher acceptance rates compared to a lottery for a greater incentive in social media-based surveys.

Remote consent approaches for mobile phone surveys of non-communicable disease risk factors in Colombia and Uganda: A randomized study

INTRODUCTION

Automated mobile phone surveys (MPS) can be used to collect public health data of various types to inform health policy and programs globally. One challenge in administering MPS is identification of an appropriate and effective participant consent process. This study investigated the impact of different survey consent approaches on participant disposition (response characteristics and understanding of the purpose of the survey) within the context of an MPS that measured noncommunicable disease (NCD) risk factors across Colombia and Uganda.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to one of five consent approaches, with consent modules varying by the consent disclosure and mode of authorization. The control arm consisted of a standard consent disclosure and a combined opt-in/opt-out mode of authorization. The other four arms consist of a modified consent disclosure and one of four different forms of authorization (i.e., opt-in, opt-out, combined opt-in/opt-out, or implied). Data related to respondent disposition and respondent understanding of the survey purpose were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 1889 completed surveys in Colombia, differences in contact, response, refusal, and cooperation rates by study arms were found. About 68% of respondents correctly identified the survey purpose, with no significant difference by study arm. Participants reporting higher levels of education and urban residency were more likely to identify the purpose correctly. Participants were also more likely to accurately identify the survey purpose after completing several survey modules, compared to immediately following the consent disclosure (78.8% vs 54.2% correct, p<0.001). In Uganda, 1890 completed surveys were collected. Though there were differences in contact, refusal, and cooperation rates by study arm, response rates were similar across arms. About 37% of respondents identified the survey purpose correctly, with no difference by arm. Those with higher levels of education and who completed the survey in English were able to more accurately identify the survey purpose. Again, participants were more likely to accurately identify the purpose of the survey after completing several NCD modules, compared to immediately following the consent module (42.0% vs 32.2% correct, p = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

This study contributes to the limited available evidence regarding consent procedures for automated MPS. Future studies should develop and trial additional interventions to enhance consent for automated public health surveys, and measure other dimensions of participant engagement and understanding.

Supporting Trial Participation in People with the Huntington's Gene: A Patient-Centered, Theory-Guided Survey of Barriers and Enablers

BACKGROUND

Under-recruitment regularly impedes clinical trials, leading to wasted resources and opportunity costs. Methods for designing trial participation strategies rarely consider behavior change theory.

OBJECTIVE

Informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, we identified factors important to participating in Huntington's disease research and provide examples of how such a theory-informed approach can make specific suggestions about how to design targeted recruitment strategies.

METHODS

We identified a range of trial participation barriers and enablers based on interviews of key informants and implemented an online survey of members of the Huntington's disease community, asking them to rate the extent to which different factors would affect likelihood to participate in a generic Huntington's disease trial.

RESULTS

From 4,195 members, we received 323 responses and 243 completed surveys (323/4,195 or 8% participation, 243/323 or 75% completion). Respondents endorsed 9 barriers and 23 enablers relevant to trial participation. Most frequently endorsed barriers were travel to the study site (69%), worry about unknown side effects (65%), trial documents being difficult to understand (64%), and participation affecting other activities (49%). Enablers included optimism about likelihood of trial participation leading to a cure (98%), helping others (98%), contributing to science (97%), and having helpful people available to help with the participation decision (89%).

CONCLUSION

Our theory-informed survey to identify barriers to and enablers of Huntington's disease trial participation identified 32 factors, from 13 theoretical domains relevant to trial participation, and suggests effective approaches for improving trial participation and patient experience.

Co-creation of information materials within the assent process: From theory to practice

INTRODUCTION

The informed consent process is key to safeguarding the autonomy of the participant in medical research. For this process to be valid, the information presented to the potential participant should meet their needs and be understood by them. The i-CONSENT project has developed 'Guidelines for adapting the informed consent process in clinical trials' which aim to improve informed consent so that they are easier to understand and better adapted to the needs and preferences of the target population. The best way to tailor information to the characteristics and preferences of the target population is to involve the community itself.

METHODS

Following guidelines developed by i-CONSENT, assent materials were co-created for a mock clinical trial of the human papillomavirus vaccine in adolescents. During the process, two design thinking sessions were conducted involving a total of 10 children and 5 parents. The objectives of the sessions were to find out the children's opinion of the informed consent (assent in their case) process in clinical trials, identify the parts that were most difficult to understand and alternatives for their presentation and wording, identify the preferred formats for receiving the information and the main characteristics of these formats, design a video explaining the clinical trial and evaluate a tool for assessing comprehension.

RESULTS

Assent materials were co-created in three formats: a web-based material following a layered approach; a video in story format; a pdf document with an innovative way of presenting information compared to traditional assent documents. In addition, the Comprehension of Assent Questionnaire was co-designed, based on the Quality of Informed Consent questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

The design thinking methodology has proven to be an easy and useful tool for involving children in designing information tailored to their needs and preferences.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

A sample of the target population participated in the design and piloting of the materials created using design thinking methodology. In addition, patient representatives participated in the design and evaluation of the guidelines developed by the i-CONSENT project that were followed for the development of the materials in this study.

Parents' understanding of genome and exome sequencing for pediatric health conditions: a systematic review

Genome and exome sequencing (GS/ES) are increasingly being used in pediatric contexts. We summarize evidence regarding the actual and perceived understanding of GS/ES of parents of a child offered testing for diagnosis and/or management of a symptomatic health condition. We searched four databases (2008-2021) and identified 1264 unique articles, of which 16 met inclusion criteria. We synthesized data from qualitative and quantitative studies and organized results using Ayuso et al. (2013)'s framework of key elements of information for informed consent to GS/ES. Many of the parents represented had prior experience with genetic testing and accessed a form of genetic counseling. Parents' understanding was varied across the domains evaluated. Parents demonstrated understanding of the various potential direct clinical benefits to their child undergoing GS/ES, including in relation to other genetic tests. We found parents had mixed understanding of the nature of potential secondary findings, and of issues related to data privacy, confidentiality, and usage of sequencing results beyond their child's clinical care. Genetic counseling consultations improved understanding. Our synthesis indicates that ES/GS can be challenging for families to understand and underscores the importance of equipping healthcare professionals to explore parents' understanding of ES/GS and the implications of testing for their child.

Development of a measure to assess the quality of proxy decisions about research participation on behalf of adults lacking capacity to consent: the Combined Scale for Proxy Informed Consent Decisions (CONCORD scale)

BACKGROUND

Recruitment of adults lacking the capacity to consent to trials requires the involvement of an alternative 'proxy' decision-maker, usually a family member. This can be challenging for family members, with some experiencing emotional and decisional burdens. Interventions to support proxy consent decisions in non-emergency settings are being developed. However, the ability to evaluate interventions is limited due to a lack of measures that capture outcomes of known importance, as identified through a core outcome set (COS).

METHODS

Using established measure development principles, a four-stage process was used to develop and refine items for a new measure of proxy decision quality: (1) findings from a recent scoping review and consensus study were reviewed to identify items for inclusion in the scale and any existing outcome measures, (2) assessment of content coverage by existing measures and identification of insufficiency, (3) construction of a novel scale, and (4) cognitive testing to explore comprehension of the scale and test its content adequacy through interviews with family members of people with impaired capacity.

RESULTS

A range of outcome measures associated with healthcare decision-making and informed consent decisions, such as the Decisional Conflict Scale, were identified in the scoping review. These measures were mapped against the key constructs identified in the COS to assess content coverage. Insufficient coverage of areas such as proxy-specific satisfaction and knowledge sufficiency by existing instruments indicated that a novel measure was needed. An initial version of a combined measure (the CONCORD scale) was drafted and tested during cognitive interviews with eleven family members. The interviews established comprehension, acceptability, feasibility, and content adequacy of the scale. Participants suggested re-phrasing and re-ordering some questions, leading to the creation of a revised version.

CONCLUSIONS

The CONCORD scale provides a brief measure to evaluate the quality of decisions made on behalf of an adult who lacks the capacity to consent in non-emergency settings, enabling the evaluation of interventions to improve proxy decision quality. Initial evaluation indicates it has content adequacy and is feasible to use. Further statistical validation work is being undertaken.

Eligibility criteria in NIH-funded clinical trials: Can adults with intellectual disability get in?

BACKGROUND

Although scientific breakthroughs can promote health equity, there is concern that adults with intellectual disability, a health disparities population, may be excluded from clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the extent to which adults with intellectual disability are subject to exclusion from National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded clinical trials.

METHODS

We studied recent NIH-funded Phase 2/3, 3, and 4 clinical trials of United States-based working-age adults (>18 < 55 years of age) listed in ClinicalTrials.gov. We coded eligibility criteria for inclusion, direct exclusion, and indirect exclusion of adults with intellectual disability.

RESULTS

We rarely identified studies that directly include adults with intellectual disability. Most studies (74.6%) had eligibility criteria that directly and/or indirectly exclude adults with intellectual disability. Approximately one-third of studies had direct exclusion criteria based on cognitive impairment or diagnosis of intellectual disability. Nearly 65% of studies indirectly excluded adults with intellectual disability based on factors likely associated with intellectual disability (e.g., functional capacity, inability to read/write, and/or research staff discretion).

CONCLUSIONS

We found less exclusion based on diagnosis of intellectual disability than anticipated. Nonetheless, about three-fourths of studies had eligibility criteria which would likely lead to the direct and/or indirect exclusion of adults with intellectual disability. Our findings suggest substantial cause for concern that adults with intellectual disability experience widespread exclusion from NIH-funded clinical trials-exclusion that may lack appropriate justification and assessment. Consequently, this group is denied equal access to the potential benefits of scientific discovery. We provide recommendations for approaches to include adults with intellectual disability.

(Re)Conceptualising 'good' proxy decision-making for research: the implications for proxy consent decision quality

People who are unable to make decisions about participating in research rely on proxies to make a decision based on their wishes and preferences. However, patients rarely discuss their preferences about research and proxies find it challenging to determine what their wishes would be. While the process of informed consent has traditionally been the focus of research to improve consent decisions, the more conceptually complex area of what constitutes 'good' proxy decision-making for research has remained unexplored. Interventions are needed to improve and support proxy decision-making for research but are hampered by a lack of understanding about what constitutes decision quality in this context. A global increase in conditions associated with cognitive impairment such as dementia has led to an urgent need for more research into these conditions. The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent necessity to conduct research with large numbers of critically ill patients has made this need even more pressing. Much of the empirical research centres on the desire to improve decision accuracy, despite growing evidence that authenticity is more reflective of the aim of proxy decisions and concerns about the methodological flaws in authenticity-focused studies. Such studies also fail to take account of the impact of decision-making on proxies, or the considerable body of research on improving the quality of healthcare decisions. This paper reports a concept synthesis of the literature that was conducted to develop the first conceptualisation of 'good' proxy decisions about research participation. Elements of decision quality were identified across three stages of decision-making: proxy preparedness for decision-making which includes knowledge and understanding, and values clarification and preference elicitation; the role of uncertainty, decisional conflict, satisfaction and regret in the decision-making process; and preference linked outcomes and their effect. This conceptualisation provides an essential first step towards the future development of interventions to enhance the quality of proxy decision-making and ensure proxy decisions represent patients' values and preferences.

Development and Evaluation of the Clinical Trial HEalth Knowledge and Beliefs Scale (CHEKS)

Patient health literacy is vital to clinical trial engagement. Knowledge and beliefs about clinical trials may contribute to patient literacy of clinical trials, influencing engagement, enrollment and retention. We developed and assessed a survey that measures clinical trial health knowledge and beliefs, known as the Clinical trial HEalth Knowledge and belief Scale (CHEKS). The 31 survey items in CHEKS represent knowledge and beliefs about clinical trial research (n = 409) in 2017. We examined item-scale correlations for the 31 items, eliminated items with item-scale correlations less than 0.30, and then estimated internal consistency reliability for the remaining 25 items. We used the comparative fit index (CFI) and the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) to evaluate model fit. The average age of the sample was 34 (SD = 15.7) and 48% female. We identified 6 of the 31 items that had item-scale correlations (corrected for overlap) lower than 0.30. Coefficient alpha for the remaining 25 items was 0.93 A one-factor categorical confirmatory factor analytic model with 16 correlated errors was not statistically significant (chi-square = 10011.994, df = 300, p < 0.001) but fit the data well (CFI = 0.95 and RMSEA = 0.07). CHEKS can assess clinical trial knowledge and beliefs.

Understanding of Critical Elements of Informed Consent in Genomic Research: A Case of a Paediatric HIV-TB Research Project in Uganda

Several studies have reported inadequate comprehension of informed consent for genomic research. This study aimed to assess research participants' understanding of critical elements of informed consent for genomic research. A cross-sectional survey involving 123 parents/caregivers of children participating in a paediatric genomic TB/HIV study was conducted. Only 47.2% of the participants had adequate understanding of consent information. The mean objective (actual) and subjective (perceived) understanding scores were 78.7% and 91.7% respectively. Participants adequately understood most elements of consent however, some elements were poorly understood including foreseeable risks, protection of confidentiality and compensation for research related injury. Overall there was inadequate comprehension of critical elements of informed consent and there was dissonance between actual and perceived comprehension of informed consent.

"It All Depends": Patient and Decision Partner Experiences in Cancer Clinical Trial Decision-Making

While the supporting role of families and friends has been widely recognized in cancer care, little data exist on how they influence patients' decisions regarding clinical trial participation, accounting for patients' decisional preferences. The goal of our study was to examine the process of clinical trial decision-making from the perspective of adults with cancer and their decision partners. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 patients and 12 decision partners-family and friends engaged in the medical decision-making. Themes included: (1) having the ability and confidence to make decisions; (2) gaining insight about clinical trials; (3) trusting someone in the process; and (4) realizing readiness and context. Our findings will enhance understanding of how patients make clinical trial decisions based on decisional preferences from the perspectives of patients and decision partners. The findings may also help to increase clinician awareness and inclusion of decision partners in conversations regarding clinical trials.

Struggling with extensive informed consent procedures for cancer trials-is there even a benefit for the patients?

Purpose

Informed consent procedures in clinical trials often differ in length and complexity to those in clinical routine care. Little is known about the benefit of extensive procedures as intended in clinical trials compared to procedures in routine cancer treatment.

Methods

In two different clinical studies performed at a comprehensive cancer center, we compared patients’ comprehension and satisfaction of current informed consent procedures in routine clinical care with the level of comprehension and satisfaction of patients treated within clinical trials. Patients with a new cancer diagnosis and recent informed consent received a questionnaire about satisfaction, comprehension, time management, and physician–patient relationship of the informed consent process. Patients in cohort 1 consented to cancer treatment within a clinical trial and were additionally interviewed in a structured way; patients in cohort 2 consented to “standard” chemotherapy and received a follow-up questionnaire after 6 months.

Results

In cohort 1, 82 patients completed the questionnaire and had an additional structured interview. They were treated in 41 different trials, receiving up to 40 pages of educational material. In cohort 2, 89 patients completed the first and 52 completed the follow-up questionnaire after receiving a standard informed consent form of 6 pages. Subjective understanding and satisfaction with the information provided was equally very high. However, deficits in objective understanding were observed in both cohorts.

Conclusion

Extensive informed consent procedures for clinical cancer trials have not been associated with a higher level of satisfaction or measurable objective understanding; therefore, the benefit seems to be limited.

Patients in phase 1 cancer trials: psychological distress and understanding of trial information

BACKGROUND

Psychological distress may be present among patients who are considering enrollment in phase 1 cancer trials, as they have advanced cancer and no documented treatment options remain. However, the prevalence of psychological distress has not been previously investigated in larger cohorts. In complex phase 1 cancer trials, it is important to ensure adequate understanding of the study premises, such as the undocumented effects and the risk of adverse events.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a prospective study, patients completed questionnaires at two time points. We investigated psychological distress, measured as stress, anxiety, and depression, among patients at their first visit to the phase 1 unit (N = 229). Further, we investigated the understanding of trial information among patients who were enrolled in a phase 1 cancer trial (N = 57).

RESULTS

We enrolled 75% of 307 eligible patients. We found a lower mean score of stress in our population compared to population norms, while the mean scores of anxiety and depression were higher. A total of 9% showed moderate to severe symptoms of anxiety and 11% showed moderate to severe symptoms of depression, which indicates higher levels than cancer patients in general. A total of 46 (81% of enrolled patients) completed questionnaires on trial information and consent. The understanding of the information on phase 1 cancer trials in these patients was slightly lower than the level reported for cancer trials in general. Some aspects relating to purpose, benefit, and additional risks were understood by fewer than half of the patients.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that distress is not as prevalent in the population of patients referred to phase 1 cancer trials as in the general cancer population. Although patients' understanding of trial information was reasonable, some aspects of complex phase 1 cancer trials were not easily understood by enrolled patients.

Communicating With Diverse Patients About Participating in a Biobank: A Randomized Multisite Study Comparing Electronic and Face-to-Face Informed Consent Processes

Some individuals' understanding of informed consent (IC) information may improve with electronic delivery, but others may benefit from face-to-face (F2F). This randomized, multisite study explores how individuals from diverse backgrounds understand electronic IC documents versus F2F, their confidence in understanding, and enrollment in research. A total of 501 patients at two U.S. biobanks with diverse populations participated. There were no overall differences between electronic and F2F understanding, but F2F predicted higher confidence in understanding and enrollment. Ethnicity and a higher educational level predicted higher understanding and confidence. Study findings suggest that electronic consent may lead to better understanding for non-Hispanic patients of higher socioeconomic status. F2F processes may lead to better understanding and higher enrollment of patients from Hispanic and lower socioeconomic levels. Researchers should carefully consider how they implement electronic IC processes and whether to maintain an F2F process to better address the needs and limitations of some populations.

Oncologic patients' misconceptions may impede enrollment into clinical trials: a cross-sectional study

Background

Clinical trials are an essential source for advances in oncologic care, yet the enrollment rate is only 2-4%. Patients' reluctance to participate is an important barrier. This study evaluates patients' level of understanding and attitudes towards clinical trials.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted in the oncology department and day care unit at the oncology division Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Israel. From January 2015 to September 2016. Two-hundred patients’ currently receiving active anti-cancer therapy at a large tertiary hospital completed an anonymous questionnaire comprised of demographic information, past experience in clinical research and basic knowledge on clinical trials.

Results

The majority of respondents did not meet the minimum knowledge level criteria. In those who replied they would decline to participate in a clinical trial, concern were related to potential assignment to the placebo arm, provision of informed consent and trust issues with their oncologist. Those with sufficient knowledge were significantly more interested in participating. Patients with past experience in clinical trials had a higher level of academic education, were less religious, had a better understanding of medical research and were inclined to participate in future research.

Conclusions

Misperceptions of clinical trials may contribute substantially to the unwillingness to participate in them.

Development and preliminary evaluation of tablet computer-based decision aid for patients participating in cancer clinical trials

Objectives

Patients often consent to participate in cancer clinical trials despite misunderstanding the trial content. We developed a tablet-based clinical trial decision aid and tested its use with the usual discussion at the time of clinical trial registration.

Methods

Participants were individuals considering participating in a breast cancer clinical trial. The control participated in usual discussions; the intervention group participated in discussion using the decision aid. Pre- and post-discussion, we investigated knowledge, decision-making conflict, and discussion length.

Results

We enrolled 54 patients, 27 in the control group and 27 in the intervention group. Post-discussion clinical trial knowledge was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (p = 0.003). No significant difference was found in decisional conflict, but the intervention group tended to have lower post-discussion conflict than the control group. There was no between-group difference in the length of discussions with physicians and clinical research coordinators.

Conclusion

For women considering participation in cancer clinical trials, a tablet-based decision aid may promote clinical trial understanding without increasing discussion length or patient burden. This pre-learning decision aid incorporating a quiz and bidirectional question prompt lists may improve participants’ understanding of clinical trials.

•

The tablet's interactivity helps participants make decisions efficiently.

•

The quiz format may help patients better understand clinical trials.

•

Interactive question prompt lists likely enhance physician–patient communication.

•

Pre-learning decision aids may help to reduce consultation time.

Applying a Digital Health Checklist and Readability Tools to Improve Informed Consent for Digital Health Research

Background: As research involving human participants increasingly occurs with the aid of digital tools (e.g., mobile apps, wearable and remote pervasive sensors), the consent content and delivery process is changing. Informed consent documents to participate in research are lengthy and difficult for prospective participants to read and understand. As the consent communication will need to include concepts and procedures unique to digital health research, making that information accessible and meaningful to the prospective participant is critical for consent to be informed. This paper describes a methodology that researchers can apply when developing a consent communication for digital health research.

Methods: A consent document approved by a US institutional review board was deconstructed into segments that aligned with federal requirements for informed consent. Three researchers independently revised each segment of text with a goal of achieving a readability score between a 6–8th grade level. The team then consulted with an external readability expert well-versed in revising informed consent documents into “plain language.” The resulting text was evaluated using Microsoft Word and Online-Utility accessibility software. The final step involved adding visual images and graphics to complement the text. The Digital Health Checklist consent prototype builder was then used to identify areas where the consent content could be expanded to address four key domains of Access and Usability, Privacy, Risks and Benefits, and Data Management.

Results: The approved consent was evaluated at a 12.6 grade reading level, whereas the revised language by our study team received 12.4, 12, and 12.58, respectively. The final consent document synthesized the most readable of the three revised versions and was further revised to include language recommended by the software tool for improving readability, which resulted in a final revised consent readability score of a 9.2 grade level. Moreover, word count was reduced from 6,424 in the original consent to 679 in the rewritten consent form.

Conclusion: Utilizing an iterative process to design an accessible informed consent document is a first step in achieving meaningful consent to participate in digital health research. This paper describes how a consent form approved by an institutional review board can be made more accessible to a prospective research participant by improving the document readability score, reducing the word count and assessing alignment with the Digital Health Checklist.

Comparing a Multimedia Digital Informed Consent Tool With Traditional Paper-Based Methods: Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

The traditional informed consent (IC) process rarely emphasizes research participants’ comprehension of medical information, leaving them vulnerable to unknown risks and consequences associated with procedures or studies.

Objective

This paper explores how we evaluated the feasibility of a digital health tool called Virtual Multimedia Interactive Informed Consent (VIC) for advancing the IC process and compared the results with traditional paper-based methods of IC.

Methods

Using digital health and web-based coaching, we developed the VIC tool that uses multimedia and other digital features to improve the current IC process. The tool was developed on the basis of the user-centered design process and Mayer’s cognitive theory of multimedia learning. This study is a randomized controlled trial that compares the feasibility of VIC with standard paper consent to understand the impact of interactive digital consent. Participants were recruited from the Winchester Chest Clinic at Yale New Haven Hospital in New Haven, Connecticut, and healthy individuals were recruited from the community using fliers. In this coordinator-assisted trial, participants were randomized to complete the IC process using VIC on the iPad or with traditional paper consent. The study was conducted at the Winchester Chest Clinic, and the outcomes were self-assessed through coordinator-administered questionnaires.

Results

A total of 50 participants were recruited in the study (VIC, n=25; paper, n=25). The participants in both groups had high comprehension. VIC participants reported higher satisfaction, higher perceived ease of use, higher ability to complete the consent independently, and shorter perceived time to complete the consent process.

Conclusions

The use of dynamic, interactive audiovisual elements in VIC may improve participants’ satisfaction and facilitate the IC process. We believe that using VIC in an ongoing, real-world study rather than a hypothetical study improved the reliability of our findings, which demonstrates VIC’s potential to improve research participants’ comprehension and the overall process of IC.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02537886; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02537886

Perceived barriers to assessing understanding and appreciation of informed consent in clinical trials: A mixed-method study

Introduction:

Participants and research professionals often overestimate how well participants understand and appreciate consent information for clinical trials, and experts often vary in their determinations of participant’s capacity to consent to research. Past research has developed and validated instruments designed to assess participant understanding and appreciation, but the frequency with which they are utilized is unknown.

Methods:

We administered a survey to clinical researchers working with older adults or those at risk of cognitive impairment (N = 1284), supplemented by qualitative interviews (N = 60).

Results:

We found that using a validated assessment of consent is relatively uncommon, being used by only 44% of researchers who had an opportunity. Factors that predicted adoption of validated assessments included not seeing the study sponsor as a barrier, positive attitudes toward assessments, and being confident that they had the resources needed to implement an assessment. The perceived barriers to adopting validated assessments of consent included lack of awareness, lack of knowledge, being unsure of how to administer such an assessment, and the burden associated with implementing this practice.

Conclusions:

Increasing the use of validated assessments of consent will require educating researchers on the practice and emphasizing very practical assessments, and may require Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) or study sponsors to champion the use of assessments.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of enhanced informed consent compared to standard informed consent to improve patient understanding of early phase oncology clinical trials (CONSENT)

INTRODUCTION

Early 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 ANALYSIS

This 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 DISSEMINATION

Ethics 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 NUMBER

NCT04407676; Pre-results.

Children's Understanding of Informed Assents in Research Studies

The assent procedure reflects an effort to enable the minor to understand, to the degree they are capable of, what their participation in the decision making process would involve. Aims: To evaluate the minors’ ability to understand the information provided to them when obtaining assent and to evaluate the opinion of the parents regarding the importance of asking the child’s assent. Methods: The sample included a total of 52 minors aged between 10 and 17 years who underwent exercise echocardiogram. The Quality of Informed Consent is divided into two parts: Part A was used to measure objective understanding and part B to measure subjective understanding. Results: The results show that the minors have a high capacity to understand the information given to them when asking for assent. A positive relationship was found between the two parts of the questionnaire. No statistically significant relationship was found between age and sex and part A and part B or between both age groups (<14 years old and ≥14 years old) and the measure. In the case of the parents, 96.6% of parents consider assent as an advantage for the child’s acceptance of health care. The opinion of the parents is not related to the age, sex or level of schooling. Conclusion: Minors showed a substantial level of understanding regarding the information provided to them. The parents considered the implementation of assent fundamental to the child’s acceptance of health care.

European Academy of Neurology/European Alzheimer's Disease Consortium position statement on diagnostic disclosure, biomarker counseling, and management of patients with mild cognitive impairment

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Careful counseling through the diagnostic process and adequate postdiagnostic support in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is important. Previous studies have indicated heterogeneity in practice and the need for guidance for clinicians.

METHODS

A joint European Academy of Neurology/European Alzheimer's Disease Consortium panel of dementia specialists was appointed. Through online meetings and emails, positions were developed regarding disclosing a syndrome diagnosis of MCI, pre- and postbiomarker sampling counseling, and postdiagnostic support.

RESULTS

Prior to diagnostic evaluation, motives and wishes of the patient should be sought. Diagnostic disclosure should be carried out by a dementia specialist taking the ethical principles of "the right to know" versus "the wish not to know" into account. Disclosure should be accompanied by written information and a follow-up plan. It should be made clear that MCI is not dementia. Prebiomarker counseling should always be carried out if biomarker sampling is considered and postbiomarker counseling if sampling is carried out. A dementia specialist knowledgeable about biomarkers should inform about pros and cons, including alternatives, to enable an autonomous and informed decision. Postbiomarker counseling will depend in part on the results of biomarkers. Follow-up should be considered for all patients with MCI and include brain-healthy advice and possibly treatment for specific underlying causes. Advice on advance directives may be relevant.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidance to clinicians on various aspects of the diagnostic process in patients with MCI is presented here as position statements. Further studies are needed to enable more evidence-based and standardized recommendations in the future.

Results from a Theory-Guided Survey to Support Breast Cancer Trial Participation: Barriers, Enablers, and What to Do about them

Background: Ensuring adequate, informed, and timely participation in clinical trials is a multifactorial problem. We have previously developed a systematic, tailorable survey development approach that is informed by theory, can identify barriers and enablers to participation, and can suggest recruitment strategies to address these issues. In this study, we surveyed subscribers to the Canadian Breast Cancer Network (CBCN) in order to identify a comprehensive list of theory-informed barriers and enablers relevant to participation in a hypothetical breast cancer trial. Methods: We developed and conducted an online survey of breast cancer patients informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and designed to determine previous experience with clinical trials, knowledge about clinical trials, and importance of a comprehensive list of barriers and enablers to trial participation. Participants were contacted by email or through social media. Results: From 2451 subscribers of the CBCN, we received 244 responses and 210 completed surveys (244/2451 or 9.9% participation, 210/244 or 86.1% completion). A total of 38% of respondents indicated experience in trial participation, but 83% indicated confidence in their knowledge about clinical trials. Those who had previously participated in clinical trials were more confident in their knowledge (χ²= 6.77, p = 0.009) and answered more knowledge questions (t = −3.90 p = 0.000). Endorsed barriers and enablers to participation included 39 factors across 12 of 14 domains relevant to behaviour change. Our approach identifies barriers that might be meaningfully addressed by careful knowledge provision (‘If I would learn more about my condition’; ‘If I find the trial documents hard to understand’), those that may require other theory-informed approaches to address (‘my feelings about the quality of my drug plan’; ‘my worry over unknown side effects’), and those that may require tailored approaches depending on participant differences such as previous experience in trials (‘If there were patient-friendly decision-making tools to help you make your participation decision’). Discussion: This work demonstrates that a comprehensive, theory-guided survey of barriers and enablers to participation in breast cancer clinical trials is feasible, can lead to detailed knowledge about the issues related to participation in specific trials, and most importantly, can lead to insights about evidence-based ways to better support patient participation.

Thinking about the idea of consent in data science genomics: How 'informed' is it?

In this paper we argue that 'informed' consent in Big Data genomic biobanking is frequently less than optimally informative. This is due to the particular features of genomic biobanking research which render it ethically problematic. We discuss these features together with details of consent models aimed to address them. Using insights from consent theory, we provide a detailed analysis of the essential components of informed consent which includes recommendations to improve consent performance. In addition, and using insights from philosophy of mind and language and psycholinguistics we support our analyses by identifying the nature and function of concepts (ideas) operational in human cognition and language together with an implicit coding/decoding model of human communication. We identify this model as the source of patients/participants poor understanding. We suggest an alternative, explicit model of human communication, namely, that of relevance-theoretic inference which obviates the limitations of the code model. We suggest practical strategies to assist health service professionals to ensure that the specific information they provide concerning the proposed treatment or research is used to inform participants' decision to consent. We do not prescribe a standard, formal approach to decision-making where boxes are ticked; rather, we aim to focus attention towards the sorts of considerations and questions that might usefully be borne in mind in any consent situation. We hope that our theorising will be of real practical benefit to nurses and midwives working on the clinical and research front-line of genomic science.

Randomized comparison of two interventions to enhance understanding during the informed consent process for research

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Many 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).

METHODS

In 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.

RESULTS

A 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.

CONCLUSION

This 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.

Informed consent: Old and new challenges in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

In this paper, we address how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted informed consent for clinical research through examining experiences within Clinical and Translation Science Award (CTSA) institutions. We begin with a brief overview of informed consent and the challenges that existed prior to COVID-19. Then, we discuss how informed consent processes were modified or changed to address the pandemic, consider what lessons were learned, and present research and policy steps to prepare for future research and public health crises. The experiences and challenges for CTSA institutions offer an important perspective for examining what we have learned about informed consent and determining the next steps for improving the consent process.

Parental decision making regarding consent to randomization on Children's Oncology Group AALL0932

BACKGROUND

Within pediatric oncology, parental decision making regarding participation in clinical trials that aim to reduce therapy to mitigate side effects is not well studied. The recently completed Children's Oncology Group trial for standard-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia (AALL0932) included a reduction in maintenance therapy, and required consent for randomization immediately prior to starting maintenance. At our institution, 40% of children enrolled on AALL0932 were withdrawn from protocol therapy prior to randomization due to parental choice. This study sought to identify factors that impacted parental decision making regarding randomization on AALL0932.

PROCEDURE

Parents of children enrolled on AALL0932 at our institution were eligible if their child met criteria for the average-risk randomization. Parents were invited to participate in a 30-50-minute phone interview. Questions focused on factors that shaped parental decision making about randomization, as well as their perspectives about the clinical trial experience more generally.

RESULTS

Fear of receiving less therapy and subsequent relapse was the predominant reason to decline randomization. Reasons given for consenting to randomization included trust in the physician, altruism, hope for less therapy, and potential for fewer side effects. Parents also reflected on ways to support future families making decisions about clinical trial participation.

CONCLUSION

While many parents recognize the importance of clinical trials aiming to mitigate side effects, the fear of their own child relapsing with less than standard therapy may dissuade them from study participation. Recognizing and addressing these concerns will be important for enrollment and retention in future clinical trials.

An international core outcome set for evaluating interventions to improve informed consent to clinical trials: The ELICIT Study

•

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.

•

Broad stakeholder involvement, including; potential trial participants (e.g., patients or others who could provide a lay perspective), trialists, research nurses, social scientists, clinicians, bioethicists, and research ethics committee members.

•

Represents outcomes that are of core importance to multiple stakeholders and, if adopted, will improve the relevance of future trials in this field.

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.

Patient accrual and understanding of informed consent in a two-stage consent design

BACKGROUND

We previously introduced the concept of "two-stage" (or "just-in-time") informed consent for randomized trials with usual care control. We argued that conducting consent in two stages-splitting information about research procedures from information about the experimental intervention-would reduce the decisional anxiety, confusion, and information overload commonly associated with informed consent. We implemented two-stage consent in a low-stakes randomized trial of a mindfulness meditation intervention for procedural distress in patients undergoing prostate biopsy. Here, we report accrual rates and patient understanding of the consent process.

METHODS

Patients approached for consent for the biopsy trial were asked to complete the standard "Quality of Informed Consent" questionnaire to assess their knowledge and understanding of the trial.

RESULTS

Accrual was excellent with 108 of 110 (98%) patients approached for consent signing first-stage consent. All 51 patients randomized to the experimental arm and who later presented for biopsy signed second-stage consent and received the mindfulness intervention. Quality of Informed Consent data were available for 48 patients assigned to the mindfulness treatment arm and 44 controls. The mean Quality of Informed Consent score was similar in the meditation and control arms with and overall mean of 75 (95% confidence interval = 74-76) for the knowledge section and 86 (95% confidence interval = 81-90) for understanding, comparable to the normative scores of 80 and 88. On further analysis and patient interview, two of the Quality of Informed Consent questions were found to be misleading in the context of a two-stage consent study for a mindfulness intervention. Excluding these questions increased knowledge scores to 88 (95% confidence interval = 87-90).

CONCLUSION

We found promising data that two-stage consent facilitated accrual without compromising patient understanding of randomized trials or compliance with allocated treatment. Further research is needed incorporating randomized comparison of two-stage consent to standard consent approaches, measuring patient anxiety and distress as an outcome, using suitable modifications to the Quality of Informed Consent questionnaire and trials with higher stakes.

Any progress in informed consenting for cancer treatment? Results from a cross sectional analysis at a comprehensive cancer center

Purpose

Informed consent is required prior to any medical procedure. In the context of cancer treatment, special efforts are needed to inform cancer patients properly about treatment, potential sequelae and alternative therapies. Little is known about the effectiveness of current informed consent strategies and patients’ individual satisfaction. Given the heterogeneity in terms of age, education, sex and other factors, detailed understanding of patients’ comprehension and perception is the basis for further optimization of the informed consent process, which was the aim of the current investigation.

Methods

Patients with a new cancer diagnosis and recent informed consent were asked to complete a questionnaire about satisfaction, comprehension, time management, physician–patient relationship and other items of the informed consent process. Patients were followed for 6 months and invited to complete a follow-up questionnaire.

Results

In total, 89 patients completed the first questionnaire and 52 the follow-up questionnaire. Subjective understanding was assumed high, however, this did not correlate with objective understanding. Age and education were identified as influencing factors for comprehension. 85% of the patients were satisfied with the information provided. A major gap was the information on alternative therapies. Moreover, not all patients perceived the consent dialog as such, and particularly the individual treatment intention partially remained unclear for some patients.

Conclusions

To ensure that informed consent is based on solid understanding, informed consenting must be patient-centered and consider the individual expectations, needs and abilities of cancer patients. Further studies are required to develop tailored informed consent strategies.

An Electronic Tool to Support Patient-Centered Broad Consent: A Multi-Arm Randomized Clinical Trial in Family Medicine

PURPOSE

Patients are frequently asked to share their personal health information. The objective of this study was to compare the effects on patient experiences of 3 electronic consent (e-consent) versions asking patients to share their health records for research.

METHODS

A multi-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted from November 2017 through November 2018. Adult patients (n = 734) were recruited from 4 family medicine clinics in Florida. Using a tablet computer, participants were randomized to (1) a standard e-consent (standard), (2) an e-consent containing standard information plus hyperlinks to additional interactive details (interactive), or (3) an e-consent containing standard information, interactive hyperlinks, and factual messages about data protections and researcher training (trust-enhanced). Satisfaction (1 to 5), subjective understanding (0 to 100), and other outcomes were measured immediately, at 1 week, and at 6 months.

RESULTS

A majority of participants (94%) consented to future uses of their health record information for research. No differences in study outcomes between versions were observed at immediate or 1-week follow-up. At 6-month follow-up, compared with the standard e-consent, participants who used the interactive e-consent reported greater satisfaction (B = 0.43; SE = 0.09; P <.001) and subjective understanding (B = 18.04; SE = 2.58; P <.001). At 6-month follow-up, compared with the interactive e-consent, participants who used the trust-enhanced e-consent reported greater satisfaction (B = 0.9; SE = 1.0; P <.001) and subjective understanding (B = 32.2; SE = 2.6, P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who used e-consents with interactive research details and trust-enhancing messages reported higher satisfaction and understanding at 6-month follow-up. Research institutions should consider developing and further validating e-consents that interactively deliver information beyond that required by federal regulations, including facts that may enhance patient trust in research.

Development and Pilot of a REDCap Electronic Informed Consent Form for Research: An Example from the ROPE Study

A study that describes the development of an electronic informed consent, using the REDCap platform, and the results of a pilot study to assess participants' understanding and acceptance of that electronic informed consent for use in a research study.

Does an interactive trust-enhanced electronic consent improve patient experiences when asked to share their health records for research? A randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

In the context of patient broad consent for future research uses of their identifiable health record data, we compare the effectiveness of interactive trust-enhanced e-consent, interactive-only e-consent, and standard e-consent (no interactivity, no trust enhancement).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized trial was conducted involving adult participants making a scheduled primary care visit. Participants were randomized into 1 of the 3 e-consent conditions. Primary outcomes were patient-reported satisfaction with and subjective understanding of the e-consent. Secondary outcomes were objective knowledge, perceived voluntariness, trust in medical researchers, consent decision, and time spent using the application. Outcomes were assessed immediately after use of the e-consent and at 1-week follow-up.

RESULTS

Across all conditions, participants (N = 734) reported moderate-to-high satisfaction with consent (mean 4.3 of 5) and subjective understanding (79.1 of 100). Over 94% agreed to share their health record data. No statistically significant differences in outcomes were observed between conditions. Irrespective of condition, black participants and those with lower education reported lower satisfaction, subjective understanding, knowledge, perceived voluntariness, and trust in medical researchers, as well as spent more time consenting.

CONCLUSIONS

A large majority of patients were willing to share their identifiable health records for research, and they reported positive consent experiences. However, incorporating optional additional information and messages designed to enhance trust in the research process did not improve consent experiences. To improve poorer consent experiences of racial and ethnic minority participants and those with lower education, other novel consent technologies and processes may be valuable. (An Interactive Patient-Centered Consent for Research Using Medical Records; NCT03063268).

A patient-focused, theory-guided approach to survey design identified barriers to and drivers of clinical trial participation

OBJECTIVES

Despite clear evidence showing that many clinical trials fail or are delayed because of poor patient recruitment, there is surprisingly little empirically supported guidance for trialists seeking to optimize their trial recruitment strategies. We propose that the challenges of recruitment can be better understood and addressed by thinking of research participation as one or more behaviors, subject to the same forces as other human behaviors. In this article, we describe an adaptable, behavioral theory-driven approach for designing pretrial surveys of the barriers and drivers relevant to trial participation. Instead of proposing a single survey instrument intended to be used uniformly across many situations, we propose that tailored surveys be informed by a common comprehensive, theory-guided development approach that ensures all domains potentially guiding participation are considered.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We used the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), which organizes over 100 constructs known to be associated with behavior and behavior change into 14 domains that describe determinants of professional and patient health behaviors, to inform the development of tailored surveys about barriers to and drivers of clinical trial participation. After searching the literature for barriers and drivers to trial recruitment relevant to each of the TDF domains, we developed separate surveys for members of two national health charities (Canadian Breast Cancer Network, Huntington Society of Canada) to exemplify how the approach can be adapted across settings. We conducted think-aloud interviews with members of each group to maximize the clarity and usability of the surveys, elicited opinions about which barriers/drivers were relevant for each patient group, and identified additional barriers/drivers. Interviews proceeded iteratively with changes incorporated into subsequent interviews. Here, we describe our two target patient groups, as well as our process of modifying, adding, and deleting barrier/driver items for each group and across theoretical domains.

RESULTS

We interviewed 8 women with a history of breast cancer from the Canadian Breast Cancer Network (48-65 year old) and 11 Huntington Disease community members (9 women) from the Huntington Society of Canada (26-70 year old). After the iterative development interviews, the breast cancer group had identified 38 barriers/drivers thought relevant to their participation in clinical trials across 12 TDF domains. The Huntington group identified 47 items across 13 TDF domains.

CONCLUSION

Our patient-focused and theory-guided approach was able to identify a more comprehensive range of barriers to and drivers of trial participation than existing published tools. Our approach is also more broadly adaptable than such tools, in that it uses a theoretical framework and in-depth piloting to generate a set of items tailored to each specific clinical area, rather than a single set of items intended to be applicable to all situations. This theory-guided approach also enables more specific recruitment strategies to be developed once domain-specific barriers are known, potentially optimizing participation for a given trial and helping build a cumulative evidence of barriers/drivers and strategies for addressing them.

What instruments should we use to assess paediatric decision-making interventions? A narrative review

There is an increasing number of shared decision-making (SDM) interventions in paediatrics. However, there is little consensus as to the best instruments to assess the feasibility and impact of these interventions. This narrative review aims to answer: (1) what feasibility, knowledge and decision-making instruments have been used to assess paediatric SDM interventions and (2) what are the psychometric properties of used decision-making instruments, guided by the 'consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instrument' criteria. We conducted a review of the peer-reviewed literature. We identified 23 studies that evaluated a paediatric intervention to facilitate SDM for a specific health decision. Eighteen studies assessed intervention feasibility, with a wide variability in assessment between studies. Twelve studies assessed objective knowledge, and four studies assessed subjective knowledge with all but one study aggregating correct responses. We identified nine decision-making instruments that had been assessed psychometrically, although few had been thoroughly evaluated. The Decisional Conflict Scale was the most commonly-used instrument and the only instrument evaluated in paediatrics. Our study revealed a lack of consistency in the instruments used to evaluate decision-making interventions in paediatrics, making it difficult to compare interventions. We provide several recommendations for researchers to improve the assessment of SDM interventions in paediatrics.