When is it impractical to ask informed consent? A systematic review

Proxy measures for the assessment of psychotic and affective symptoms in studies using electronic health records

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of standardised psychometric data in electronic health record (EHR)-based research. Proxy measures of symptom severity based on patients' clinical records may be useful surrogates in mental health EHR research.

AIMS

This study aimed to validate proxy tools for the short versions of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS-6), Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS-6) and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS-6).

METHOD

A cross-sectional, multicentre study was conducted in a sample of 116 patients with first-episode psychosis from 12 public hospitals in Spain. Concordance between PANSS-6, YMRS-6 and MADRS-6 scores and their respective proxies was evaluated based on information from EHR clinical notes, using a variety of statistical procedures, including multivariate tests to adjust for potential confounders. Bootstrapping techniques were used for internal validation, and an independent cohort from the Treatment and Early Intervention in Psychosis Program (TIPP-Lausanne, Switzerland) for external validation.

RESULTS

The proxy versions correlated strongly with their respective standardised scales (partial correlations ranged from 0.75 to 0.84) and had good accuracy and discriminatory power in distinguishing between patients in and not in remission (percentage of patients correctly classified ranged from 83.9 to 91.4% and bootstrapped optimism-corrected area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 0.76 to 0.89), with high interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.81). The findings remained robust in the external validation data-set.

CONCLUSIONS

The proxy instruments proposed for assessing psychotic and affective symptoms by reviewing EHR provide a feasible and reliable alternative to traditional structured psychometric procedures, and a promising methodology for real-world practice settings.

Specific measures for data-intensive health research without consent: a systematic review of soft law instruments and academic literature

It is a common misunderstanding of current European data protection law that when consent is not being used as lawful basis, the processing of personal data is prohibited. Article 9(2)(j) of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) permits Member States to establish a legal basis in national law that allows for the processing of personal data for scientific research purposes without consent. However, the European legislator has formulated this "research exemption" as an opening clause, rendering the GDPR not specific as to what measures exactly are required to comply with the research exemption. This may have significant implications for both the protection of personal data and the advancement of data-intensive health research. We performed a systematic review of relevant soft law instruments and academic literature to identify what measures are mentioned in those documents. Our analysis resulted in the identification of four overarching themes of suggested measures: organizational measures; technical measures; oversight and review mechanisms; and public engagement and participation. Some of the suggested measures do not substantially contribute to the clarification of the GDPR's "suitable and specific measures" requirement because they remain vague or broad in nature and encompass all types of data processing. However, the themes oversight and review mechanisms and public engagement and participation provide valuable insights which can be put to practice. Nevertheless, further clarification of the measures and safeguards that should be installed when invoking the research exemption remains necessary.

Ethics Along the Continuum of Research Involving Persons with Disorders of Consciousness

Interest in disorders of consciousness (DoC) has grown substantially over the past decade and has illuminated the importance of improving understanding of DoC biology; care needs (use of monitoring, performance of interventions, and provision of emotional support); treatment options to promote recovery; and outcome prediction. Exploration of these topics requires awareness of numerous ethics considerations related to rights and resources. The Curing Coma Campaign Ethics Working Group used its expertise in neurocritical care, neuropalliative care, neuroethics, neuroscience, philosophy, and research to formulate an informal review of ethics considerations along the continuum of research involving persons with DoC related to the following: (1) study design; (2) comparison of risks versus benefits; (3) selection of inclusion and exclusion criteria; (4) screening, recruitment, and enrollment; (5) consent; (6) data protection; (7) disclosure of results to surrogates and/or legally authorized representatives; (8) translation of research into practice; (9) identification and management of conflicts of interest; (10) equity and resource availability; and (11) inclusion of minors with DoC in research. Awareness of these ethics considerations when planning and performing research involving persons with DoC will ensure that the participant rights are respected while maximizing the impact and meaningfulness of the research, interpretation of outcomes, and communication of results.

Navigating Informed Consent Requirements and Expectations in Cluster Randomized Trials: Research Ethics Board Members' and Researchers' Views

Informed consent is a cornerstone of ethical human research. However, as cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are increasingly popular to evaluate health service interventions, especially as health systems aspire toward the learning health system, questions abound how research teams and research ethics boards (REBs) should navigate intertwining consent and data-use considerations. Methodological and ethical questions include who constitute the participants, whose and what types of consent are necessary, and how data from people who have not consented to participation should be managed to optimize the balance of trust in the research enterprise, respect for persons, the promotion of data integrity, and the pursuit of the public good in the research arena. In this paper, we report the findings and lessons learned from a qualitative study examining how researchers and REB members consider the ethical dimensions of when data can be collected and used in CRTs in the evolving research landscape.

Continuous quality improvement: reducing informed consent form signing errors

BACKGROUND

Adherence to ethical guidelines and regulations and protecting and respecting the dignity and autonomy of participants by obtaining a valid informed consent form (ICF) prior to participation in research are crucial; The subjects did not add signatures next to the corrections made to signatures or dates on the ICF, Multiple signatures in other fields, ICF missing/missing signature, Incorrect ICF version Signed after modification, Correction tape used to correct signature, Impersonated signature, Non-research-member signature, however, ICFs are often not properly completed, which must be addressed. This study analyzed ICF signing errors and implemented measures to reduce or prevent these errors.

METHODS

We used the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycle to help improve the correctness and validity of ICF signing.

RESULTS

Interim and final reports from January 2016 to February 2020 including 363 ICFs were studied. The total proportion of correct ICF signatures (200, 83.3%) following the PDCA intervention was significantly higher than that before the intervention (P < 0.05). Analysis of the types of signing error demonstrated that signature errors were significantly reduced after the intervention, particularly for subjects did not add signatures next to the corrections made to signatures or dates on the ICF (16, 6.7%) and impersonated signature (0; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportions of other error types-multiple signatures in other fields, missing or unsigned ICF, incorrect signature order, incorrect ICF version, use of correction tape to correct signature, and non-medical profession members signing the ICF-did not differ significantly.

Informed Consent in COVID-19-Research: An Ethical Analysis of Clinical Studies Performed during the Pandemic

Health crises such as the current COVID-19 pandemic pose challenges to the conduct of clinical studies. Aspects of research ethics, such as obtaining informed consent (IC), can be complicated. We are concerned with whether or not the proper IC procedures were followed in the context of clinical studies at Ulm University in the years 2020 to 2022. We identified all protocols of clinical studies dealing with COVID-19 that the Research Ethics Committee of Ulm University has reviewed and voted on in the years 2020 to 2022. We then performed a thematic analysis regarding the following aspects: study type, handling of IC, type of patient information, means of communication, applied security precautions, and the approach to participants from vulnerable groups. We identified n = 98 studies that dealt with COVID-19. In n = 25 (25.51%), IC was obtained traditionally in written form, in n = 26 (26.53%) IC was waived, in n = 11 (11.22%) IC was obtained delayed, and in n = 19 (19.39%) IC was obtained by proxy. No study protocol was accepted that waived IC in case IC would have been required in times outside of pandemics. It is possible to obtain IC even in times of severe health crises. In the future, it is necessary to address in greater detail and with legal certainty which alternative methods of obtaining IC are possible and under which circumstances IC can be waived.

Assessing the acceptability of individual studies that use deception: A systematic review of normative guidance documents

Research participants are often deceived for methodological reasons. However, assessing the ethical acceptability of an individual study that uses deception is not straightforward. The academic literature is scattered on the subject and several aspects of the acceptability assessment are only scarcely addressed, which parallels reports of inconsistent ethics review. Therefore, we aimed to investigate where normative guidance documents agree and disagree about this assessment. A PRISMA-Ethics-guided systematic review of normative guidance documents that discuss deception of research participants was conducted. Our search strategy resulted in 55 documents that were subsequently analyzed through abductive thematic analysis. While guidance documents mention little about specific risks and opportunities of deception, our analysis describes a rich picture of the thresholds for acceptability of the risks and benefits of deception and their integration, the comparison with the risk-benefit analysis of alternative non-deceptive methods, and the bodies of people who are positioned to do the review. Our review reveals an agreement on the general process of assessing the acceptability of studies that use deception, although significant variability remains in the details and several topics are largely or completely unaddressed in guidance documents.