I don't like that, it's tricking people too much...: acute informed consent to participation in a trial of thrombolysis for stroke

Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Obtaining written informed consent from participants before enrolment in a study is essential. A previous study showed that only 50% of the participants in clinical trials understood the components of informed consent, and the methods of participants' understanding of informed consent were controversial. This updated meta-analysis aimed to estimate the proportion of participants in clinical trials who understand the different informed consent components. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched till April 2023. Therapeutic misconception, ability to name one risk, knowing that treatments were being compared, and understanding the nature of the study, the purpose of the study, the risks and side-effects, the direct benefits, placebo, randomization, voluntariness, freedom to withdraw, the availability of alternative treatment if withdrawn from the trial, confidentiality, compensation, or comprehension were evaluated. This meta-analysis included 117 studies (155 datasets; 22,118 participants). The understanding of the risks and side-effects was investigated in the largest number of studies (n = 100), whereas comparehension was investigated in the smallest number (n = 11). The highest proportions were 97.5%(95% confidence interval (CI): 97.1-97.9) for confidentiality, 95.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 95.4-96.4) for compensation, 91.4% (95% CI: 90.7-92.1) for the nature of study, 68.1% (95% CI: 51.6-84.6) for knowing that treatments were being compared, and 67.3% (95% CI: 56.6-78) for voluntary nature of participants. The smallest proportions were the concept of placebo (4.8%, 95%CI: 4.4-5.2) and randomization(39.4%, 95%CI: 38.3-40.4). Our findings suggested that most participants understood the fundamental components of informed consent (study confidentiality, nature, compensation, voluntariness, and freedom to withdraw). The understanding of other components, such as placebo and randomization was less satisfactory.

Clinical research for life-threatening illnesses requiring emergency hospitalisation: a critical interpretive synthesis of qualitative data related to the experience of participants and their caregivers

BACKGROUND

Research into life-threatening illnesses which require emergency hospitalisation is essential. This group of patients is unique in that they are experiencing an unfolding emergency when they are approached, enrolled, and followed up in a research study. We aimed to synthesise qualitative data from trial participants and surrogate decision-makers to deepen our understanding and inform the design and conduct of future clinical trials for life-threatening illnesses.

METHODS

We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis of qualitative data from trial participants and surrogate decision-makers related to the experience of participating in a clinical research study when suffering from a life-threatening illness. A scoping review informed a systematic review of published data. We searched research databases and reviewed papers for inclusion. Primary data and interpretations of data were extracted from each paper. Data were analysed using reciprocal translational analysis, refutational synthesis, and lines of argument synthesis to develop a synthetic construct.

RESULTS

Twenty-two papers were included. Most individuals had no previous knowledge or experience with clinical research. Individuals making decisions were directly experiencing or witness to an unfolding emergency which came with a myriad of physical and psychological symptoms. It was difficult to differentiate clinical research and routine care, and understanding of core concepts around research, particularly randomisation and equipoise, was limited. We found that this led to an underestimation of risk, an overestimation of benefit, and an expectation of being allocated to the intervention arm. The decision-making process was heavily influenced by trust in the research team. Individuals suggested that abbreviated information, presented in different ways and continuously throughout the research process, would have increased knowledge and satisfaction with the research process.

CONCLUSION

Individuals suffering from a life-threatening illness who are being invited to participate in clinical research need to be managed in a way that adapts to the severity of their illness and there is a need to tailor research processes, including informed consent, accordingly. We provide suggestions for further research and implementation work around research participation for individuals suffering from a life-threatening illness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020207296.

Advance consent for participation in randomised controlled trials for emergency conditions: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Advance consent is a recognised method of obtaining informed consent for participation in research, whereby a potential participant provides consent for future involvement in a study contingent on qualifying for the study's inclusion criteria on a later date. The goal of this study is to map the existing literature on the use of advance consent for enrolment in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for emergency conditions.

DESIGN

Scoping review designed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials from inception to 10 February 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible studies included articles that discussed or employed the use of advance consent for enrolment in RCTs related to emergency conditions. There were no restrictions on the type of eligible study. Data were extracted directly from included papers using a standardised data charting form. We produced a narrative review including article type and authors' dispositions towards advance consent.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 1039 titles with duplicates removed. Six articles met inclusion criteria. Three articles discussed the theoretical use of research advance directives in emergency conditions; one article evaluated stakeholders' perceptions of advance consent; and one article described a method for patients to document their preferences for participation in future research. Only one study employed advance consent to enrol participants into a clinical trial for an emergency condition.

CONCLUSION

Our review demonstrates that there has been minimal exploration of advance consent for enrolment in RCTs for emergency conditions. Future studies could aim to assess the acceptability of advance consent to participants, along with the feasibility of enrolling research participants using this method of consent.

PROTOCOL

The protocol for this scoping review was published a priori.

Protocol for Deferral of Consent in Acute Stroke Trials

The challenges of conducting hyperacute stroke research and obtaining informed consent have been increasingly recognized within the stroke research community in recent years. Deferral of consent, in which a patient is enrolled in a trial and then provides consent at some point thereafter, is increasingly used to enroll patients into hyperacute stroke trials in Canada and Europe, although it is not permitted in the United States. Deferral of consent offers several potential advantages-quicker door-to-randomization, increased enrolment, decreased selection bias-but these must be balanced against the risk of enrolling patients against their wishes. We seek to minimize the attendant risks of deferral of consent by offering practical guidance regarding how to conduct acute stroke trials using deferral of consent. Building on existing guidelines and recent experiences with deferral of consent in acute stroke trials, we have developed a protocol for the use of deferral of consent that aims to maximize patient involvement while minimizing ethical and scientific risks.

Occupational therapists and physiotherapists weighing up the dignity of risk for people living with a brain injury: grounded theory

PURPOSE

Following a brain injury survivors may have physical, or cognitive changes or behaviours which bring safety risks into play when engaging in activities. Therapists experience tensions in enabling the dignity of participation in the context of managing risk.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten occupational therapists and seven physiotherapists participated in a grounded theory study utilising semi-structured in-depth interviews to explore the tensions between dignity and management of safety risks. Data were analysed using constant comparative method and a process of moving from open coding to categories to theory development.

RESULTS

The process of weighing up was central to the therapists' approach to supporting dignity while managing risk. Respecting dignity itself is placed at risk when preventing harm is weighted higher than living a full life. Therapists who use weighing up as a process that respects dignity place greater value on the principles of respecting autonomy and promotion of justice for people with a brain injury.

CONCLUSION

Rather than taking control and attempting to minimise risk therapists who privilege the perspective of the client, and provide opportunities for learning through failure or success, enable clients to live a full life.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONEnsuring that clients with brain injury are safe often requires therapists to exercise control and remove agency thus removing the rights of the client to the dignity of risk and living a full life.Providing opportunities within rehabilitation for clients to experience failure and success enables learning and thereby support dignity.Privileging the client perspective provides clients the dignity of living a normal life.

Patient and proxies' attitudes towards deferred consent in randomised trials of acute treatment for stroke: A qualitative survey

Introduction

Deferral of consent for participation in a clinical study is a relatively novel procedure, in which informed consent is obtained after randomisation and study treatment. Deferred consent can be used in emergency situations, where small therapeutic time windows limit possibilities for patients to provide informed consent. We aimed to investigate patients' or their proxies' experiences and opinions regarding deferred consent in acute stroke randomised trials.

Patients and methods

For this qualitative study, Dutch Collaboration for New Treatments of Acute Stroke (CONTRAST) trial participants were selected. Study participants were either patients or their proxies who provided consent and were selected with theoretical sampling based on patient characteristics. Semi-structured interviews were conducted face-to-face or by telephone. Themes and subthemes were iteratively defined.

Results

Twenty of the 23 interviewed participants (16 patients and 7 proxies) considered deferred consent acceptable. The received study treatment and consent conversation were remembered by 18 participations, although the concept of randomisation and treatment comparison were generally not well understood. Sixteen participants felt capable of overseeing the decision to give deferred consent. Distress in the first days after stroke, lack of understanding and neurological deficits were reasons for feeling incapable of providing consent. Four participants would have preferred a different timing of the consent conversation, of whom two prior to treatment.

Conclusion

Our study found that deferred consent was considered acceptable by most study participants who provided consent for acute stroke randomised trials. Though they felt capable, the recall and comprehension of consent were overall limited.

Cross-sectional study on patients' understanding and views of the informed consent procedure of a secondary stroke prevention trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Improving understanding of study contents and procedures might enhance recruitment into studies and retention during follow-up. However, data in stroke patients on understanding of the informed consent (IC) procedure are sparse.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study among ischemic stroke patients taking part in the IC procedure of an ongoing cluster-randomized secondary prevention trial. All aspects of the IC procedure were assessed in an interview using a standardized 20-item questionnaire. Responses were collected within 72 h after the IC procedure and analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Participants were also asked their main reasons for participation.

RESULTS

A total of 146 stroke patients (65 ± 12 years old, 38% female) were enrolled. On average, patients recalled 66.4% (95% confidence interval = 65.2%-67.5%) of the content of the IC procedure. Most patients understood that participation was voluntary (99.3%) and that they had the right to withdraw consent (97.1%); 79.1% of the patients recalled the study duration and 56.1% the goal. Only 40.3% could clearly state a benefit of participation, and 28.8% knew their group allocation. Younger age, higher graduation, and allocation to the intervention group were associated with better understanding. Of all patients, 53% exclusively stated a personal and 22% an altruistic reason for participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas understanding of patient rights was high, many patients were unable to recall other important aspects of study content and procedures. Increased attention to older and less educated patients may help to enhance understanding in this patient population. Actual recruitment and retention benefit of an improved IC procedure remains to be tested in a randomized trial.

Processes of consent in research for adults with impaired mental capacity nearing the end of life: systematic review and transparent expert consultation (MORECare_Capacity statement)

BACKGROUND

Involving adults lacking capacity (ALC) in research on end of life care (EoLC) or serious illness is important, but often omitted. We aimed to develop evidence-based guidance on how best to include individuals with impaired capacity nearing the end of life in research, by identifying the challenges and solutions for processes of consent across the capacity spectrum.

METHODS

Methods Of Researching End of Life Care_Capacity (MORECare_C) furthers the MORECare statement on research evaluating EoLC. We used simultaneous methods of systematic review and transparent expert consultation (TEC). The systematic review involved four electronic databases searches. The eligibility criteria identified studies involving adults with serious illness and impaired capacity, and methods for recruitment in research, implementing the research methods, and exploring public attitudes. The TEC involved stakeholder consultation to discuss and generate recommendations, and a Delphi survey and an expert 'think-tank' to explore consensus. We narratively synthesised the literature mapping processes of consent with recruitment outcomes, solutions, and challenges. We explored recommendation consensus using descriptive statistics. Synthesis of all the findings informed the guidance statement.

RESULTS

Of the 5539 articles identified, 91 met eligibility. The studies encompassed people with dementia (27%) and in palliative care (18%). Seventy-five percent used observational designs. Studies on research methods (37 studies) focused on processes of proxy decision-making, advance consent, and deferred consent. Studies implementing research methods (30 studies) demonstrated the role of family members as both proxy decision-makers and supporting decision-making for the person with impaired capacity. The TEC involved 43 participants who generated 29 recommendations, with consensus that indicated. Key areas were the timeliness of the consent process and maximising an individual's decisional capacity. The think-tank (n = 19) refined equivocal recommendations including supporting proxy decision-makers, training practitioners, and incorporating legislative frameworks.

CONCLUSIONS

The MORECare_C statement details 20 solutions to recruit ALC nearing the EoL in research. The statement provides much needed guidance to enrol individuals with serious illness in research. Key is involving family members early and designing study procedures to accommodate variable and changeable levels of capacity. The statement demonstrates the ethical imperative and processes of recruiting adults across the capacity spectrum in varying populations and settings.

A mixed-methods systematic review of patients' experience of being invited to participate in surgical randomised controlled trials

RATIONALE

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of surgical interventions are increasing. Such trials encounter challenges that are not present in RCTs of non-surgical interventions because of the nature of the intervention. Several studies have explored patients' experiences of surgical trials to improve recruitment or identify barriers and facilitators to research in this setting. Synthesizing these studies may reveal further insights or confirm whether saturation of relevant themes has been achieved.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to understand the experiences of adults who are invited to participate in surgical RCTs.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched to identify articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Assessment of quality was conducted with studies given an overall quality rating of good, fair, or poor. A segregated approach was used to synthesize the data. This method included a thematic synthesis of the qualitative data and a narrative review of the quantitative data. The findings of both syntheses were then integrated.

RESULTS

Thirty-four articles reporting 28 trials were included. This review found that the decision to participate in a surgical trial is influenced by multiple factors including patients' individual circumstances and attitudes, and the characteristics of the trial itself. The study identified three themes which encompass both qualitative and quantitative findings. These themes reveal it was important for patients to i) make sense of the trial and trial processes, ii) weigh up the risks and benefits of their different treatment options and participation, and iii) trust the trial and staff.

CONCLUSIONS

A patient-centred approach to trial recruitment may help staff build trusting relationships with patients and address their individual concerns about the trial and the risks and benefits of participation.

Determinants of Patient and Surrogate Experiences With Acute Care Research Consent: A Key Informant Interview Study

Background Informed consent for acute myocardial infarction and stroke research is challenging. Time for enrollment decisions is limited, patients and family are usually stressed, and being asked to participate in research is often unexpected. Despite these barriers, patients and surrogates have reported a preference for prospective involvement in research decisions and generally positive views of the consent process. It is unknown what drives positive or negative consent experiences. These data are crucial to making consent processes more context appropriate. Methods and Results We conducted a qualitative interview study with 27 patients and surrogates enrolled in acute myocardial infarction and stroke trials in the past 5 years. Purposive sampling from the P-CARE (Patient-Centered Approaches to Research Enrollment) study was based on participant characteristics and responses to initial patient-centered interviews. In-depth interviews used open-ended questions to explore factors influencing consent experiences. Qualitative descriptive analysis was performed utilizing a multilevel coding strategy. Participants identified specific researcher behaviors as important, including expressions of respect, professionalism, and nonpressuring communication. Participants preferred consent conversations focused on risks/benefits and the trial protocol. They had varying views of consent forms and communicated several reasons the form was valuable unrelated to informational content. Participants also valued postenrollment interactions as opportunities to ask questions and learn about the study. Conclusions Barriers to consent in acute myocardial infarction and stroke trials are unavoidable, but participants identified productive ways to demonstrate respect for patients during enrollment conversations. These include key researcher behaviors, concentrating consent discussions on what participants find most important, and structured postenrollment follow-up.

Deferral of Consent in Acute Stroke Trials

Background and Purpose—

The ESCAPE trial (The Endovascular Treatment for Small Core and Anterior Circulation Proximal Occlusion With Emphasis on Minimizing CT to Recanalization Times) was a multicentre, randomized controlled trial of endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care for patients with acute ischemic stroke that allowed patients to be enrolled with deferred consent. We investigated the knowledge and opinions of these patients or their authorized third parties about the consent process.

Methods—

All patients (or their authorized third parties) enrolled with deferral of consent in ESCAPE were invited to complete a 12-question survey within the first 4 days of enrollment and again at 90 days. Questions investigated knowledge of the ESCAPE trial and opinions on deferral of consent.

Results—

Of 56 patients enrolled with deferred consent, 33 (59%) completed the initial survey, and of these, 27 (81%) completed the 90-day follow-up. Enrollment with deferred consent was not associated with a significant difference in door-to-randomization times (50.5 versus 57 minutes; P =0.29) but allowed these 56 patients to participate in the trial. Only 52% of respondents understood that patients could be randomized to thrombectomy or standard care, although most understood the other basic principles of the trial. At baseline and at 90 days, respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with deferred consent in acute stroke trials generally (82% and 78%) and in the ESCAPE trial specifically (93% and 91%).

Conclusions—

Respondents generally disagreed with the use of deferred consent for enrollment in the ESCAPE trial and in stroke trials more generally.

Effect of informed consent on patient characteristics in a stroke thrombolysis trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the manner of consent, i.e., informed consent by patients themselves or informed consent by proxy, affects clinical characteristics of samples of acute stroke patients enrolled in clinical trials.

METHODS

We analyzed the manner of obtaining informed consent in the first 1,005 patients from WAKE-UP, an investigator-initiated, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of MRI-based thrombolysis in stroke patients with unknown time of symptom onset running in 6 European countries. Patients providing informed consent by themselves were compared with patients enrolled by proxy consent. Baseline clinical measures were compared between groups.

RESULTS

In 359 (35.7%) patients, informed consent was by proxy. Patients with proxy consent were older (median 71 vs 66 years, p < 0.0001) and had a higher frequency of arterial hypertension (58.2% vs 43.4%, p < 0.0001). They showed higher scores on the NIH Stroke Scale (median 11 vs 5, p < 0.0001) and more frequently aphasia (73.7% vs 20.0%, p < 0.0001). The rate of proxy consent varied among countries (p < 0.0001), ranging from 77.1% in Spain to 1.2% in Denmark.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients recruited by proxy consent were older, had more severe strokes, and had higher prevalence of aphasia than those with capacity to give personal consent. Variations in the manner of consent across countries may influence trial results.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV AND CLINICALTRIALSREGISTEREU IDENTIFIERS

NCT01525290 (clinicaltrials.gov); 2011-005906-32 (clinicaltrialsregister.eu).

Recruiting and consenting into a peripartum trial in an emergency setting: a qualitative study of the experiences and views of women and healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Recruiting and consenting women to peripartum trials can be challenging as the women concerned may be anxious, in pain, and exhausted; there may also be limited time for discussion and decision-making to occur. To address these potential difficulties, we undertook a qualitative evaluation of the internal pilot of a trial (Got-it) involving women who had a retained placenta (RP). We explored the experiences and views of women and staff about the information and consent pathway used within the pilot, in order to provide recommendations for use in future peripartum trials involving recruitment in emergency situations.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were undertaken with staff (n = 27) and participating women (n = 22). Interviews were analysed thematically. The accounts of women and staff were compared to identify differences and similarities in their views about recruitment and consent procedures.

RESULTS

Women and staff regarded recruitment as having been straightforward and facilitated by the use of simplified (verbal and written) summaries of trial information. Both parties, however, conveyed discordant views about whether fully informed consent had been obtained. These differences in perspectives appeared to arise from the different factors and considerations impinging on women and staff at the time of recruitment. While staff placed emphasis on promoting understanding in the emergency situation of RP by imparting information in clear and succinct ways, women highlighted the experiential realities of their pre- and post-birthing situations, and how these had led to quick decisions being made without full engagement with the potential risks of trial participation. To facilitate informed consent, women suggested that trial information should be given during the antenatal period, and, in doing so, articulated a rights-based discourse. Staff, however, voiced opposition to this approach by emphasising a duty of care to all pregnant women, and raising concerns about causing undue distress to the majority of individuals who would not subsequently develop a RP.

CONCLUSIONS

By drawing upon the perspectives of women and staff involved in the same trial we have shown that they may operate within different experiential and ethical paradigms. In doing so, we argue for the potential benefits of drawing upon multiple perspectives when developing information and consent pathways used in future (peripartum) trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISCRTN 88609453 .

Confronting Ethical and Regulatory Challenges of Emergency Care Research With Conscious Patients

Barriers to informed consent are ubiquitous in the conduct of emergency care research across a wide range of conditions and clinical contexts. They are largely unavoidable; can be related to time constraints, physical symptoms, emotional stress, and cognitive impairment; and affect patients and surrogates. US regulations permit an exception from informed consent for certain clinical trials in emergency settings, but these regulations have generally been used to facilitate trials in which patients are unconscious and no surrogate is available. Most emergency care research, however, involves conscious patients, and surrogates are often available. Unfortunately, there is neither clear regulatory guidance nor established ethical standards in regard to consent in these settings. In this report-the result of a workshop convened by the National Institutes of Health Office of Emergency Care Research and Department of Bioethics to address ethical challenges in emergency care research-we clarify potential gaps in ethical understanding and federal regulations about research in emergency care in which limited involvement of patients or surrogates in enrollment decisions is possible. We propose a spectrum of approaches directed toward realistic ethical goals and a research and policy agenda for addressing these issues to facilitate clinical research necessary to improve emergency care.

Key stakeholder perceptions about consent to participate in acute illness research: a rapid, systematic review to inform epi/pandemic research preparedness

Background

A rigorous research response is required to inform clinical and public health decision-making during an epi/pandemic. However, the ethical conduct of such research, which often involves critically ill patients, may be complicated by the diminished capacity to consent and an imperative to initiate trial therapies within short time frames. Alternative approaches to taking prospective informed consent may therefore be used. We aimed to rapidly review evidence on key stakeholder (patients, their proxy decision-makers, clinicians and regulators) views concerning the acceptability of various approaches for obtaining consent relevant to pandemic-related acute illness research.

Methods

We conducted a rapid evidence review, using the Internet, database and hand-searching for English language empirical publications from 1996 to 2014 on stakeholder opinions of consent models (prospective informed, third-party, deferred, or waived) used in acute illness research. We excluded research on consent to treatment, screening, or other such procedures, non-emergency research and secondary studies. Papers were categorised, and data summarised using narrative synthesis.

Results

We screened 689 citations, reviewed 104 full-text articles and included 52. Just one paper related specifically to pandemic research. In other emergency research contexts potential research participants, clinicians and research staff found third-party, deferred, and waived consent to be acceptable as a means to feasibly conduct such research. Acceptability to potential participants was motivated by altruism, trust in the medical community, and perceived value in medical research and decreased as the perceived risks associated with participation increased. Discrepancies were observed in the acceptability of the concept and application or experience of alternative consent models. Patients accepted clinicians acting as proxy-decision makers, with preference for two decision makers as invasiveness of interventions increased. Research regulators were more cautious when approving studies conducted with alternative consent models; however, their views were generally under-represented.

Conclusions

Third-party, deferred, and waived consent models are broadly acceptable to potential participants, clinicians and/or researchers for emergency research. Further consultation with key stakeholders, particularly with regulators, and studies focused specifically on epi/pandemic research, are required. We highlight gaps and recommendations to inform set-up and protocol development for pandemic research and institutional review board processes.

PROSPERO protocol registration number

CRD42014014000

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1110-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Decision aids for people considering taking part in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Several interventions have been developed to promote informed consent for participants in clinical trials. However, many of these interventions focus on the content and structure of information (e.g. enhanced information or changes to the presentation format) rather than the process of decision making. Patient decision aids support a decision making process about medical options. Decision aids support the decision process by providing information about available options and their associated outcomes, alongside information that enables patients to consider what value they place on particular outcomes, and provide structured guidance on steps of decision making. They have been shown to be effective for treatment and screening decisions but evidence on their effectiveness in the context of informed consent for clinical trials has not been synthesised.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of decision aids for clinical trial informed consent compared to no intervention, standard information (i.e. usual practice) or an alternative intervention on the decision making process.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases and to March 2015: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OvidSP) (from 1950); EMBASE (OvidSP) (from 1980); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (from 1806); ASSIA (ProQuest) (from 1987); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/); ClinicalTrials.gov; ISRCTN Register (http://www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn/). We also searched reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We contacted study authors and other experts. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing decision aids in the informed consent process for clinical trials alone, or in conjunction with standard information (such as written or verbal) or alongside alternative interventions (e.g. paper-based versus web-based decision aids). Included trials involved potential trial participants, or their guardians, being asked to consider participating in a real or hypothetical clinical trial.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted reported data and assessed risk of bias. Findings were pooled where appropriate. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one study (290 randomised participants) that investigated the effectiveness of decision aids compared to standard information in the informed consent process for clinical trials. This study reported two separate decision aid randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The decision aid trials were nested within two different parent trials focusing on breast cancer in postmenopausal women. One trial focused on informed consent for treatment in women who had previously had surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), the other on informed consent for prevention in women at high risk for breast cancer. Two different decision aids were used in these RCTs, and were compared with standard information.The pooled findings highlight the uncertainty surrounding most reported outcomes, including knowledge, decisional conflict, anxiety, trial participation and attrition. There was very low quality evidence that decision aids lower levels of decisional regret to a small degree (MD -5.53, 95% CI -10.29 to -0.76). No data were identified on several prespecified primary outcomes, including accurate risk perception, values-based decision, or whether potential participants recognised that a decision needed to be made, were able to identify features of options that matter most to individuals, or were involved in the decision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to determine whether decision aids to support the informed consent process for clinical trials are more effective than standard information. Additional well designed, adequately powered clinical trials in more diverse clinical and social populations are needed to strengthen the results of this review. More generally, future research on which outcomes are most relevant for assessment in this context would be helpful.

A systematic review of strategies used to increase recruitment of people with cancer or organ failure into clinical trials: implications for palliative care research

CONTEXT

The challenges of palliative care clinical trial recruitment are well documented.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to review tested strategies to improve recruitment to trials of people with a range of conditions who may access palliative care services but are not explicitly stated to be "palliative."

METHODS

This was a systematic review with narrative description. The Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL electronic databases were searched (English; January 2002 to February 2014) for quasi-experimental and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the effect of recruitment strategies on accrual to clinical trials of people with organ failure and cancer. Titles, abstracts, and retrieved articles were screened by two researchers and categorized by recruitment challenge: 1) patients with reduced cognition, 2) those requiring emergency treatment, and 3) willingness of patients and clinical staff to contribute to trials.

RESULTS

Of 549 articles identified, 15 were included. Thirteen reported RCTs and two papers reported three quasi-experimental studies. Five were cluster RCTs of recruiting sites/institutions. One was a randomized cluster, crossover, feasibility study. Seven studies recruited patients with cancer. Others included patients with dementia, stroke, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, frail elderly, and bereaved carers. Some interventions improved recruitment: memory aid, contact before arrival, cluster consent, "opt out" consent. Others either reduced recruitment (formal mental capacity assessment) or made no difference (advance research directive; a variety of educational, supportive, and advertising interventions).

CONCLUSION

Successful strategies from other disciplines could be considered by palliative care researchers. Tailored, efficient, evidence-based strategies must be developed, acknowledging that strategies with face validity are not necessarily the most effective.

Measuring Voluntariness of Consent to Research

The conceptual complexity of the term voluntariness has resulted in relatively few empirical studies of the voluntariness component of consent to research. As the call for a formal assessment of voluntariness to be incorporated into the consent process intensifies, more researchers are responding to the challenge of developing a valid and reliable measure of voluntariness. The purpose of this article was to summarize and describe the empirical literature on voluntariness of consent. As part of a broader study on the voluntariness of consent to research, existing empirical studies of voluntariness of consent to research were reviewed to establish how voluntariness of consent to research has been assessed to date. Fifteen studies using different voluntariness assessment instruments were identified and included in the review. The review found that little attempt has been made to systematically collect data on the reliability and validity of voluntariness assessment instruments. No two instruments reviewed were found to be based on a shared conceptualization of voluntary consent to research.

Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the proportion of participants in clinical trials who understand different components of informed consent.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified by a systematic review of PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar and by manually reviewing reference lists for publications up to October 2013. A meta-analysis of study results was performed using a random-effects model to take account of heterogeneity.

FINDINGS

The analysis included 103 studies evaluating 135 cohorts of participants. The pooled proportion of participants who understood components of informed consent was 75.8% for freedom to withdraw at any time, 74.7% for the nature of study, 74.7% for the voluntary nature of participation, 74.0% for potential benefits, 69.6% for the study's purpose, 67.0% for potential risks and side-effects, 66.2% for confidentiality, 64.1% for the availability of alternative treatment if withdrawn, 62.9% for knowing that treatments were being compared, 53.3% for placebo and 52.1% for randomization. Most participants, 62.4%, had no therapeutic misconceptions and 54.9% could name at least one risk. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses identified covariates, such as age, educational level, critical illness, the study phase and location, that significantly affected understanding and indicated that the proportion of participants who understood informed consent had not increased over 30 years.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of participants in clinical trials who understood different components of informed consent varied from 52.1% to 75.8%. Investigators could do more to help participants achieve a complete understanding.

Systematic review and metasummary of attitudes toward research in emergency medical conditions

Emergency departments are challenging research settings, where truly informed consent can be difficult to obtain. A deeper understanding of emergency medical patients' opinions about research is needed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-summary of quantitative and qualitative studies on which values, attitudes, or beliefs of emergent medical research participants influence research participation. We included studies of adults that investigated opinions toward emergency medicine research participation. We excluded studies focused on the association between demographics or consent document features and participation and those focused on non-emergency research. In August 2011, we searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Scirus, PsycINFO, AgeLine and Global Health. Titles, abstracts and then full manuscripts were independently evaluated by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by consensus and adjudicated by a third author. Studies were evaluated for bias using standardised scores. We report themes associated with participation or refusal. Our initial search produced over 1800 articles. A total of 44 articles were extracted for full-manuscript analysis, and 14 were retained based on our eligibility criteria. Among factors favouring participation, altruism and personal health benefit had the highest frequency. Mistrust of researchers, feeling like a 'guinea pig' and risk were leading factors favouring refusal. Many studies noted limitations of informed consent processes in emergent conditions. We conclude that highlighting the benefits to the participant and society, mitigating risk and increasing public trust may increase research participation in emergency medical research. New methods for conducting informed consent in such studies are needed.

Recruitment to clinical trials: a meta-ethnographic synthesis of studies of reasons for participation

OBJECTIVES

Randomized controlled trials are important for evaluating health care interventions, but recruitment can be difficult. Studies of potential participants' perspectives on trial participation are accumulating, but their collective contribution is not obvious. In 2007, we conducted a meta-ethnographic synthesis of people's reasons for accepting or declining participation. This paper reports a second synthesis, conducted separately on the same topic, using studies published subsequently. It discusses both the substantive findings and the methodological implications for updating meta-ethnographies.

METHODS

Systematic searches identified relevant papers published between 1996 and 2005 (first synthesis), then 2005 and 2010 (second synthesis). We used a meta-ethnographic interpretive process of translation to examine the relationships between study findings.

FINDINGS

The two syntheses were broadly compatible, but the line of argument developed in the second more clearly highlighted how potential participants' health states and health care situations at the time of recruitment could interact with other considerations. In particular, they could influence the nature and significance for trial entry decisions of people's judgements about: their communication and relationship with trial recruiters; the personal implications of trial interventions and processes; and the 'common good' (helping others) and what their non/participation might say about their identity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our work highlights the need for trialists to consider potential participants' health and health care situations when designing recruitment approaches. It also provides the first empirical insights on the process of updating meta-ethnographies that we are currently aware of. Approaches to updating meta-ethnographies need further investigation.

Strategies for handling ethical problems in sudden and unexpected death

How ethical praxis is shaped by different contexts and situations has not been widely studied. We performed a follow-up study on stroke team members’ experiences of ethical problems and how the teams managed the situation when caring for patients faced with sudden and unexpected death from stroke. A number of ways for handling ethical problems emerged, which we have now explored further. Data were collected through a three-part form used as base for individual interviews with 15 stroke team members and analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative content analysis. In the analysis, the approaches in the form were condensed into strategies, and the two different ways those strategies were preferred and used by the team members were shown. Hindrances perceived by the team members to impede them from working the preferred way were also revealed and grouped into eight categories.

Ethics of clinical research with mentally ill persons

This article describes ethical, legal and professional components of the two core requirements of clinical research: informed consent and risk-benefit relationships. It deals particularly with the ethically relevant reasons, criteria, procedures and validity of (1) the informed consent process, (2) the relationship between benefits and risks, and as a requirement of its assessment: (3) standards and (quasi quantitative) criteria of benefits and risks and/or burdens of a research intervention. These requirements will be discussed with specific reference to research interventions in mentally ill patients, and particularly in those who are incompetent to consent. (4) The analysis concludes by demanding a strong adherence to the ethical rules of clinical research in order to protect participants and preserve the trust of both the patients and the public and (5) yields in a set of recommendations.

Evidence from the scene: paramedic perspectives on involvement in out-of-hospital research

STUDY OBJECTIVE

In the context of calls to develop better systems for out-of-hospital clinical research, we seek to understand paramedics' perceptions of involvement in research and the barriers and facilitators to that involvement.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study using semistructured focus groups with 58 United Kingdom paramedics and interviews with 30 US firefighter-paramedics. The study focused on out-of-hospital research (trials of out-of-hospital treatment for stroke), whereby paramedics identified potential study subjects or obtained consent and administered study treatment in the field. Data were analyzed with a thematic and discourse approach.

RESULTS

Three key themes emerged as significant facilitators and barriers to paramedic involvement in research: patient benefit, professional identity and responsibility, and time. Paramedics showed willingness and capacity to engage in research but also some reticence because of the perceived sacrifice of autonomy and challenge to their identity. Paramedics work in a time-sensitive environment and were concerned that research would increase time taken in the field.

CONCLUSION

Awareness of these perspectives will help with development of out-of-hospital research protocols and potentially facilitate greater participation.

Views of emergency research (VERA): a qualitative study of women and their partners' views of recruitment to trials in severe postpartum haemorrhage

OBJECTIVE

to explore women's and their partners' views of recruitment to emergency trials in severe postpartum haemorrhage (PPH).

DESIGN

interview-based qualitative study. In semi-structured in-depth interviews, five recruitment options for a PPH trial in an emergency context were considered.

SETTING

interviews were carried out in participants' homes.

PARTICIPANTS

nine women who had experienced a severe PPH and six partners.

FINDINGS

interviewees rejected three options; decision-making by women prior to delivery, and by partners and legal representatives at the time of the emergency. Preferred options were women making antenatal decisions about trial entry themselves, followed by doctors making decisions at the time of the emergency.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

recruitment options involving women and their partners at the time of an emergency were rejected. Antenatal decision-making raises logistical and ethical considerations for emergency trial teams. Further research is needed to address the possibility of antenatal decisions for emergency trials and to develop and assess supportive post-enrolment recruitment and information strategies which take into account the stressful context of clinical emergencies such as PPH.

Ethical problems: In the face of sudden and unexpected death

When people die suddenly and unexpectedly ethical issues often come to the fore. The aim of the study was to describe experiences of members of stroke teams in stroke units of ethical problems and how the teams manage the situation when caring for patients faced with sudden and unexpected death from stroke. Data were collected through four focus group interviews with 19 team members in stroke-unit teams, and analysed using interpretive content analysis. Three themes emerged from the analysis characterized by information, decisions about care and support for the next-of-kin in the changing and uncertain situation, with mutual trust as the core. Mutual trust, both within the stroke team and with next-of-kin was seen by the stroke-team members as a way of handling ethical problems by administering care with the patient’s best interest at heart.