A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial

Readability and complexity of written information presented to hospitalised patients for trial consent during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a retrospective document analysis

OBJECTIVES

Patient information sheets (PISs) and informed consent forms (ICFs) are essential tools to communicate and document informed consent for clinical trial participation. These documents need to be easily understandable, especially when used to take informed consent from acutely unwell patients. Health literacy guidance recommends written information should be at a level between reading ages 9-11. We aimed to assess the readability and complexity of PISs/ICFs used for clinical trials of acute therapies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Retrospective document analysis.

SETTING

PISs/ICFs used in trials involving pharmaceutical interventions recruiting hospitalised patients with COVID-19 during the first year of the pandemic were sourced from hospitals across the UK.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

PISs/ICFs were assessed for length, approximate reading time and subsection content. Readability and language complexity were assessed using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) (range 1-18; higher is more complex), Gunning-Fog (GFOG) (range 1-20; higher is more complex) and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) (range 0-100; below 60 is 'difficult' for comprehension).

RESULTS

13 documents were analysed with a median length of 5139 words (range 1559-7026), equating to a median reading time of 21.4 min (range 6.5-29.3 min) at 240 words per minute. Median FKGL was 9.8 (9.1-10.8), GFOG 11.8 (10.4-13) and FRES was 54.6 (47.0-58.3). All documents were classified as 'difficult' for comprehension and had a reading age of 14 years old or higher.

CONCLUSIONS

All PISs/ICFs analysed contained literary complexity beyond both recommendations and the reading level of many in the UK population. Researchers should seek to improve communications to improve trial volunteer comprehension and recruitment.

Informed Consent among Clinical Trial Participants with Different Cancer Diagnoses

IMPORTANCE

Informed consent is essential to ethical, rigorous research and is important to recruitment and retention in cancer trials.

OBJECTIVE

To examine cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants' perceptions of informed consent processes and variations in perceptions by cancer type.

DESIGN AND SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional survey from mixed-methods study at National Cancer Institute-designated Northeast comprehensive cancer center. Open-ended and forced-choice items addressed: (1) enrollment and informed consent experiences and (2) decision-making processes, including risk-benefit assessment. Eligibility: CCT participant with gastro-intestinal or genitourinary, hematologic-lymphatic malignancies, lung cancer, and breast or gynecological cancer (N = 334).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Percentages satisfied with consent process and information provided; and assessing participation's perceptions of risks/benefits. Multivariable logistic or ordinal regression examined differences by cancer type.

RESULTS

Most patient-participants felt well informed by the consent process (more than 90% overall and by cancer type) and. most (87.4%) reported that the consent form provided all the information they wanted, although nearly half (44.8%) reported that they read the form somewhat carefully or less. More than half (57.9%) said that talking to research staff (i.e., the consent process) had a greater impact on participation decisions than reading the consent form (2.1%). A third (31.1%) were very sure of joining in research studies before the informed consent process (almost half of lung cancer patients did-47.1%). Most patients personally assessed the risks and benefits before consenting. However, trust in physicians played an important role in the decision to enroll in CCT.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Cancer patients rely less on written features of the informed consent process than on information obtained from the research staff and their own physicians. Research should focus on information and communication strategies that support informed consent from referring physicians, researchers, and others to improve patient risk-benefit assessment and decision-making.

Development and validation of a stakeholder-driven, self-contained electronic informed consent platform for trio-based genomic research studies

Increasingly long and complex informed consents have yielded studies demonstrating comparatively low participant comprehension and satisfaction with traditional face-to-face approaches. In parallel, interest in electronic consents for clinical and research genomics has steadily increased, yet limited data are available for trio-based genomic discovery studies. We describe the design, development, implementation, and validation of an electronic iConsent application for trio-based genomic research deployed to support genomic studies of cerebral palsy. iConsent development incorporated stakeholder perspectives including researchers, patient advocates, institutional review board members, and genomic data-sharing considerations. The iConsent platform integrated principles derived from prior electronic consenting research and elements of multimedia learning theory. Participant comprehension was assessed in an interactive teachback format. The iConsent application achieved nine of ten proposed desiderata for effective patient-focused electronic consenting for genomic research. Overall, participants demonstrated high comprehension and retention of key human subjects' considerations. Enrollees reported high levels of satisfaction with the iConsent, and we found that participant comprehension, iConsent clarity, privacy protections, and study goal explanations were associated with overall satisfaction. Although opportunities exist to optimize iConsent, we show that such an approach is feasible, can satisfy multiple stakeholder requirements, and can realize high participant satisfaction and comprehension while increasing study reach.

SWAT 84: effects of same-day consent vs delayed consent on the recruitment and retention of trial participants-an observational SWAT

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The recruitment process in a randomized trial can be challenging. Poor recruitment can have a negative impact on the allocated budget and estimated completion date of the study and may result in an underpowered study. We aimed to perform a Study Within A Trial (SWAT) to evaluate the impact of same-day consent or delayed consent on recruitment and retention in the host trial.

METHODS

This SWAT is designed as a prospective cohort design. The host trial was a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of an intensive lifestyle modification programme in participants with peripheral arterial disease. Researchers screened the participants for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Informed consents were obtained from the participants who were willing to participate in the study on a standardized consent form. Participants were given the option to consent on the same day or to delay their consent. Following the consent, the participants were allocated to two groups (same-day consent vs. delayed consent) based on pre-determined criteria for SWAT. One hundred sixteen participants were consented to take part in the host trial. Seventy-five participants were randomized to the host trial. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who withdrew consent at the recruitment phase. Secondary outcomes were reasons for consent withdrawal and dropout, attrition rate, and adherence with the host trial intervention.

RESULTS

There was a significantly lower consent-withdrawal rate in same-day consent (17.4%, n = 8/46), compared to the delayed consent group (47.1%, n = 33/70), p = 0.001. There was a significantly lower dropout rate in participants randomized following same-day consent (10.5%, n = 4/38), compared to those randomized after delayed consent (29.7%, n = 11/37), p = 0.038. Transport was the main reason mentioned for consent withdrawal and dropout. In participants randomized to the host trial intervention arm, there was a significant difference in adherence (percentage of the 12-week programme completed) between same-day consent (96.7% ± 4.9) and delayed consent participants (86.4% ± 11.2), p = 0.003, as well as number of weeks completed (mean difference =  - 1.547, 95% confidence intervals (- 2.237 to - 0.85)), p = 0.02.

CONCLUSION

This SWAT found evidence that participants who gave consent on the same day seemed to have better adherence and fewer-withdrawal and dropout rates.

SWAT REGISTRATION

The SWAT was registered on the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research, SWAT 84.

Informed Consent in Onlinestudien

Zusammenfassung. Theoretischer Hintergrund: Für eine Studienteilnahme ist das Einverständnis der Teilnehmer_innen notwendig. Dazu ist es wichtig, dass Teilnahme- und Einverständniserklärungen gelesen und verstanden werden. Fragestellung: In einer Onlinestudie mit Studierenden wurde untersucht, inwieweit die zum Einholen eines Informed Consent (IC) verwendeten Dokumente gelesen und verstanden werden und welchen Einfluss die Gestaltung der Formatvorlage hat. Methode: Die Teilnehmenden ( N = 214) wurden randomisiert einer von drei Bedingungen (zwei unterschiedliche Teilnehmer- und Einverständniserklärungen und eine Kontrollbedingung) zugeteilt. Das Lesen dieser Dokumente wurde mittels Selbstbericht sowie über die Lesezeit erfasst. Das Verständnis der gelesenen Texte wurde mit Multiple-Choice-Fragen erhoben. Ergebnisse: Der Großteil der Proband_innen las die IC-Dokumente nicht vollständig und zeigte ein unzureichendes Verständnis relevanter Inhaltsbereiche. Hinsichtlich der Gestaltung der IC-Dokumente zeigte sich, dass beide Testversionen im Vergleich zum Kontrolldokument zu einer höheren Leserate führen. Schlussfolgerungen: Die Ergebnisse liefern Anhaltspunkte für eine optimierte Gestaltung von Einverständniserklärungen.

What information and the extent of information to be provided in an informed assent/consent form of pediatric drug trials

Background

This study aimed to determine the elements and the extent of information that child participants and their parents would like to read in an informed assent form (IAF)/informed consent form (ICF) of a pediatric drug trial.

Methods

A descriptive survey was conducted to determine the perceived importance of each element of the ICF content from child participants and their parents who underwent informed assent/consent of a multi-center pediatric drug trial. The respondents were asked to indicate the level of importance of each item in a questionnaire, by giving a rating scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).

Results

A total of 22 families, 17 child participants with the diagnosis of hematology or oncology diseases and 27 parents, were enrolled. Among 30 items, risk–benefit aspects (i.e., direct health benefit [mean: 4.71 for child respondents, 4.89 for parent respondents], indirect/societal benefit [mean: 4.65, 4.85], major foreseeable risk [mean: 4.47, 4.78], post-trial benefit/provision [mean: 4.59, 4.74], and all adverse effects of the drug including uncommon adverse effects [mean: 4.53, 4.74]) were perceived to be of most concerning items from both child participants’ and parents’ viewpoint. None of the items were considered ‘slightly important’ or lower by more than 20% of the respondents.

Conclusions

For pediatric drug trials, risk–benefit information (including direct health benefit, indirect/societal benefit, and post-trial benefit/provision, as well as major foreseeable risk and adverse effects of the drug) should be made a salient feature of an IAF/ICF. This empirical data could help related stakeholders arrange essential information in order of importance and tailor an IAF/ICF to better suit child participants’ and parents’ needs, particularly for pediatric drug trials involving children with the diagnosis of hematology or oncology diseases.

Examining the language demands of informed consent documents in patient recruitment to cancer trials using tools from corpus and computational linguistics

Obtaining informed consent (IC) is an ethical imperative, signifying participants' understanding of the conditions and implications of research participation. One setting where the stakes for understanding are high is randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which test the effectiveness and safety of medical interventions. However, the use of legalese and medicalese in ethical forms coupled with the need to explain RCT-related concepts (e.g. randomization) can increase patients' cognitive load when reading text. There is a need to systematically examine the language demands of IC documents, including whether the processes intended to safeguard patients by providing clear information might do the opposite through complex, inaccessible language. Therefore, the goal of this study is to build an open-access corpus of patient information sheets (PIS) and consent forms (CF) and analyze each genre using an interdisciplinary approach to capture multidimensional measures of language quality beyond traditional readability measures. A search of publicly-available online IC documents for UK-based cancer RCTs (2000-17) yielded corpora of 27 PIS and 23 CF. Textual analysis using the computational tool, Coh-Metrix, revealed different linguistic dimensions relating to the complexity of IC documents, particularly low word concreteness for PIS and low referential and deep cohesion for CF, although both had high narrativity. Key part-of-speech analyses using Wmatrix corpus software revealed a contrast between the overrepresentation of the pronoun 'you' plus modal verbs in PIS and 'I' in CF, exposing the contradiction inherent in conveying uncertainty to patients using tentative language in PIS while making them affirm certainty in their understanding in CF.

Experimenting with modifications to consent forms in comparative effectiveness research: understanding the impact of language about financial implications and key information

Background

Informed consent forms are intended to facilitate research enrollment decisions. However, the technical language in institutional templates can be unfamiliar and confusing for decision-makers. Standardized language describing financial implications of participation, namely compensation for injury and costs of care associated with participating, can be complex and could be a deterrent for potential participants. This standardized language may also be misleading in the context of comparative effectiveness trials of standard care interventions, in which costs and risk of injury associated with participating may not differ from regular medical care. In addition, the revised U.S. Common Rule contains a new requirement to present key information upfront; the impact of how this requirement is operationalized on comprehension and likelihood of enrollment for a given study is unknown.

Methods

Two online surveys assessed the impact of (1) changes to compensation for injury language (standard vs. tailored language form) and (2) changes to the key information page (using the tailored compensation language form with standard key information vs. modified key information vs. modified key information plus financial information) on both likelihood of enrollment in and understanding of a hypothetical comparative effectiveness trial.

Results

Likelihood of enrolling was not observed to be different between the standard and tailored language forms in Study 1 (73 vs. 75%; p = 0.6); however, the tailored language group had a higher frequency of understanding the compensation for injury process specific to the trial (25 vs. 51%; p < 0.0001). Modifications to the key information sheet in Study 2 did not affect likelihood of enrolling (88 vs. 85 vs. 85%; p = 0.6); however, understanding of randomization differed by form (44 vs. 59 vs. 46%; p = 0.002).

Conclusions

These findings suggest that refining consent forms to clarify key information and tailoring compensation for injury language to the nature of the study, especially in the context of comparative effectiveness trials, may help to improve study comprehension but may not impact enrollment.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00736-x.

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.

Incorporating Biobank Consent into a Healthcare Setting: Challenges for Patient Understanding

Biobank participants often do not understand much of the information they are provided as part of the informed consent process, despite numerous attempts at simplifying consent forms and improving their readability. We report the first assessment of biobank enrollees' comprehension under an "integrated consent" process, where patients were asked to enroll in a research biobank as part of their normal healthcare experience. A number of healthcare systems have implemented similar integrated consent processes for biobanking, but it is unknown how much patients understand after enrolling under these conditions. Methods: We recruited patients who enrolled in a biobank while in a healthcare setting when receiving ordinary care. We assessed knowledge of consent materials using 11 true/false questions drawn from a well-known biobank knowledge test. After reviewing the results from 114 participants, we revised the consent form and repeated the knowledge assessment with 144 different participants. Results: Participants scored poorly on the knowledge test in both rounds, with no significant differences in overall scores or individual items between the rounds. In Phase 1, participants answered 53% of the questions correctly, 25% incorrectly, and 22% "I don't know." In Phase 2, participants answered 53% of questions correctly, 24% incorrectly, and 23% "I don't know." Participants scored particularly poorly on questions about data sharing and accessing medical records. Conclusions: Enrollees under an integrated consent model had significant misunderstandings that persisted despite an attempt to improve information specifically about those topics in a consent form. These results raise challenges for current approaches that attribute misunderstanding to overly complex consent forms. They also suggest that the pressures of the clinic may compound other problems with patient understanding of biobank consent. As health systems increasingly blend research and care, they may need to rethink their approach to educating patients about participation in a biobank.

Factors Influencing Successful Recruitment of Racial and Ethnic Minority Patients for an Observational HIV Cohort Study in Washington, DC

The process of recruiting racial and ethnic minority persons living with HIV (PLWH) is important for research studies to ensure inclusivity of underrepresented groups. To understand factors associated with recruitment of minority PLWH, this study examined the recruitment process of PLWH for an observational study of their routine medical care at 14 clinics in Washington, DC. Research assistant (RA) recruiters were interviewed to assess their consenting processes and strategies. Data were collected on clinic services, patient demographics, and recruitment logs of patient approaches for obtaining informed consent resulting in agreement or refusal. A median of 96% of eligible patients was approached to obtain consent, yielding a median consent rate of 78% across all sites. A total of 8438 patients consented and 1326 refused study participation. Clinical sites with more comprehensive services had higher consent rates. black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx PLWH consented or refused study participation in similar proportions, while significantly more white patients enrolled than refused. More men, compared with women, enrolled than refused study participation. The most frequent reasons for refusing study participation were the lack of interest in research (33.2%) and no specific reason provided (28%). RAs identified that effective recruitment strategies used culturally sensitive approaches, built rapport with patients, and obtained provider support for the study. Recruitment strategies that are gender sensitive to address the disparity of underrepresentation of women, address perceived barriers, and examine clinic-specific services are needed to maximize research participation for minority PLWH to improve prevention and health outcomes.

Readability and understandability of clinical research patient information leaflets and consent forms in Ireland and the UK: a retrospective quantitative analysis

OBJECTIVES

The first aim of this study was to quantify the difficulty level of clinical research Patient Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms (PILs/ICFs) using validated and widely used readability criteria which provide a broad assessment of written communication. The second aim was to compare these findings with best practice guidelines.

DESIGN

Retrospective, quantitative analysis of clinical research PILs/ICFs provided by academic institutions, pharmaceutical companies and investigators.

SETTING

PILs/ICFs which had received Research Ethics Committee approval in the last 5 years were collected from Ireland and the UK.

INTERVENTION

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

PILs/ICFs were evaluated against seven validated readability criteria (Flesch Reading Ease, Flesh Kincaid Grade Level, Simplified Measure of Gobbledegook, Gunning Fog, Fry, Raygor and New Dale Chall). The documents were also scored according to two health literacy-based criteria: the Clear Communication Index (CCI) and the Suitability Assessment of Materials tool. Finally, the documents were assessed for compliance with six best practice metrics from literacy agencies.

RESULTS

A total of 176 PILs were collected, of which 154 were evaluable. None of the PILs/ICFs had the mean reading age of <12 years recommended by the American Medical Association. 7.1% of PILs/ICFs were evaluated as 'Plain English', 40.3%: 'Fairly Difficult', 51.3%: 'Difficult' and 1.3%: 'Very Difficult'. No PILs/ICFs achieved a CCI >90. Only two documents complied with all six best practice literacy metrics.

CONCLUSIONS

When assessed against both traditional readability criteria and health literacy-based tools, the PILs/ICFs in this study are inappropriately complex. There is also evidence of poor compliance with guidelines produced by literacy agencies. These data clearly evidence the need for improved documentation to underpin the consent process.

Assessing Parent Decisions About Child Participation in a Behavioral Health Intervention Study and Utility of Informed Consent Forms

IMPORTANCE

Obtaining informed consent is an important ethical obligation for clinical research participation that is imperfectly implemented. Research on improving consent processes often focuses on consent forms, but little is known about consent forms' influence on decision-making compared with other types of engagement.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether parents decide whether to enroll their children in research before or after they receive the consent form.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An online survey of 88 parents who enrolled or declined to enroll their child in a weight management intervention study between January 2, 2018, and June 24, 2019, was conducted; surveys were completed between February 2, 2018, and July 9, 2019. A 31-item survey asked about impressions of the study throughout the enrollment process, timing of enrollment decisions, and decision-making factors. Responses were summarized descriptively and subgroups were compared using the Fisher exact test or χ2 test.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Self-reported timing of enrollment decision.

RESULTS

A total of 106 parents were approached and gave permission for their contact information to be shared with the study team; 22 additional parents declined to allow their information to be shared, and 24 lost contact with the partner study before they could be asked for permission. A total of 88 parents (67 enrollees, 21 decliners) completed the survey (83% participation rate); 79 of 88 reporting gender (instead of sex, as biological sex was not relevant to survey) information were women (91%), 66 participants (75%) were non-Hispanic White, and 63 participants (72%) had annual household incomes greater than or equal to $70 000. No significant differences in respondent characteristics between enrollees and decliners were identified. Fifty-nine parents (67%) responded that they decided whether to enroll in the weight management study before receiving the consent form. Only 17 of 69 parents (25%) who remembered receiving the consent form responded that it taught them new information.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this study suggest that interventions to improve informed consent forms may have limited influence on decision-making because many research decisions occur before review of the consent form. It appears that regulatory review and interventions to improve decision-making should focus more on early engagement (eg, recruitment materials). Future studies should test timing of decisions in other types of research with different populations and clinical settings.

Supporting informed clinical trial decisions: Results from a randomized controlled trial evaluating a digital decision support tool for those with intellectual disability

BACKGROUND

Informed consent requires that individuals understand the nature of the study, risks and benefits of participation. Individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) have cognitive and adaptive impairments that may affect their ability to provide informed consent. New treatments and clinical trials for fragile X syndrome, the most commonly known inherited cause of ID, necessitate the development of methods to improve the informed consent process. The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy of a digital decision support tool with that of standard practice for informed consent and to examine whether the tool can improve decisional capacity for higher functioning individuals.

METHODS

Participants (N = 89; mean age = 21.2 years) were allocated to the experimental group (consenting information provided via the digital decision support tool), or the comparison group (information provided via standard practice). Participants were assessed on four aspects of decisional capacity (Understanding, Appreciating, Reasoning, and Expressing a choice). We used regression analyses to test the impact of the tool on each outcome, repeating the analyses on the higher functioning subsample.

RESULTS

No differences existed in any domain of decisional capacity for the sample in full. However, participants in the higher IQ subsample who used the tool scored better on Understanding after adjustment (β = 0.25, p = 0.04), but not on Appreciating or Reasoning. No differences by experimental group existed in the decision to join the hypothetical trial for the full sample or higher functioning subsample.

CONCLUSIONS

A decision support tool shows promise for individuals with fragile X syndrome with higher cognitive abilities. Future studies should examine the level of cognitive ability needed for sufficient understanding, whether these findings can be translated to other clinical populations, and the impact of the tool in larger trials and on trial retention.

Readability of consent forms in veterinary clinical research

Background

“Readability” of consent forms is vital to the informed consent process. The average human hospital consent form is written at a 10th grade reading level, whereas the average American adult reads at an 8th grade level. Limited information currently exists regarding the readability of veterinary general medical or clinical research consent forms.

Hypothesis/Objectives

The goal of this study was to assess the readability of veterinary clinical trial consent forms from a group of veterinary referral centers recently involved in a working group focused on veterinary clinical trial review and consent. We hypothesized that consent forms would not be optimized for client comprehension and would be written above the National Institutes of Health‐recommended 6th grade reading level.

Animals

None.

Methods

This was a prospective study assessing a convenience sample of veterinary clinical trial consent forms. Readability was assessed using 3 methods: the Flesch‐Kincaid (F‐K) Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), and the Readability Test Tool (RTT). Results were reported as mean (±SD) and compared across specialties.

Results

Fifty‐three consent forms were evaluated. Mean FRES was 37.5 ± 6.0 (target 60 or higher). Mean F‐K Grade Level was 13.0 ± 1.2 and mean RTT grade level was 12.75 ± 1.1 (target 6.0 or lower). There was substantial agreement between F‐K and RTT grade level scores (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.8).

Conclusions and Clinical Importance

No form evaluated met current health literacy recommendations for readability. A simple and readily available F‐K Microsoft‐based approach for evaluating grade level was in substantial agreement with other methods, suggesting that this approach might be sufficient for use by clinicians and administrators drafting forms for future studies.

Developing informed consent materials for non-English-speaking participants: An analysis of four professional firm translations from English to Spanish

Background/Aims:

An increasing body of research is being conducted with non-English-speaking subjects. Study-related materials, including those essential for obtaining informed consent, must often be translated from English into other languages. In this study, we sought to examine the types of issues that may arise when consent materials are translated from English to Spanish.

Methods:

Drawing on expertise from five individuals associated with our research team, four of whom are native Spanish speakers of different dialects of Spanish, we crafted translations of our own consent materials for biobanking using a rigorous, multi-step process involving both forward and back translation. We then systematically compared our translations to those produced by four professional translation firms to identify potential concerns in our own and the professional translations.

Results:

We identified three primary types of problems of relevance for researchers conducting studies where translation of written information is required. These included nonequivalent registers (in particular, the introduction of more complicated language), errors of omission (reducing the clarity of the information), and changes that altered the substantive meaning of the information.

Conclusion:

Our findings highlight the importance of working with translators who not only possess “textbook” knowledge of both languages but also an appreciation of the sociocultural factors that affect how people interpret and understand meaning. Moreover, translators who have a basic understanding of research are more likely to accurately convey essential research concepts. We describe a series of steps researchers can take that may help to improve the quality of translated materials.

Assessment of a shortened informed consent form for pediatric research: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Inherent to clinical research is the informed consent process, with the informed consent form (ICF), a key component of human participant protections. We wished to examine whether a shortened and simplified ICF, accompanied by an appendix, improved participant understanding of a study compared with a conventional ICF.

METHODS

A shortened ICF was developed from an existing conventional ICF for a neonatal study. Either the shortened or conventional ICF was randomly distributed to members of two parental advocacy groups. Participants answered survey questions about the form they received.

RESULTS

Thirty-one out of forty-one (76%) parents in the shortened ICF and 28/41 (68%) in the conventional ICF group responded. Significantly more parents in the shortened ICF group found their form "short and to the point". Although they also stated that the shortened ICF did not provide enough information, there were no significant differences between groups measuring the understanding of key study components.

CONCLUSION

A shortened ICF did not impact the understanding of the clinical trial. It will be important to compare the shortened and conventional forms in actual clinical trials.

What information and the extent of information research participants need in informed consent forms: a multi-country survey

Background

The use of lengthy, detailed, and complex informed consent forms (ICFs) is of paramount concern in biomedical research as it may not truly promote the rights and interests of research participants. The extent of information in ICFs has been the subject of debates for decades; however, no clear guidance is given. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine the perspectives of research participants about the type and extent of information they need when they are invited to participate in biomedical research.

Methods

This multi-center, cross-sectional, descriptive survey was conducted at 54 study sites in seven Asia-Pacific countries. A modified Likert-scale questionnaire was used to determine the importance of each element in the ICF among research participants of a biomedical study, with an anchored rating scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).

Results

Of the 2484 questionnaires distributed, 2113 (85.1%) were returned. The majority of respondents considered most elements required in the ICF to be ‘moderately important’ to ‘very important’ for their decision making (mean score, ranging from 3.58 to 4.47). Major foreseeable risk, direct benefit, and common adverse effects of the intervention were considered to be of most concerned elements in the ICF (mean score = 4.47, 4.47, and 4.45, respectively).

Conclusions

Research participants would like to be informed of the ICF elements required by ethical guidelines and regulations; however, the importance of each element varied, e.g., risk and benefit associated with research participants were considered to be more important than the general nature or technical details of research. Using a participant-oriented approach by providing more details of the participant-interested elements while avoiding unnecessarily lengthy details of other less important elements would enhance the quality of the ICF.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12910-018-0318-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patient consent to publication and data sharing in industry and NIH-funded clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Participants are recruited into clinical trials under the assumption that the research will contribute to medical knowledge. Therefore, non-publication trials-and, more recently, lack of data sharing-are widely considered to violate the trust of trial participants. Existing practices regarding patient consent to publication and data sharing have not been evaluated. Analyzing informed consent forms (ICFs), we studied what trial participants were told regarding investigators' intention to contribute to medical knowledge, publish trial results, and share de-identified trial data.

METHODS

We obtained 98 ICFs of industry-funded pre-marketing trials for all (17) antibiotics approved by the European Medicines Agency and 46 ICFs of publicly funded trials from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC) data repository. Three authors independently reviewed ICFs to identify and extract what was stated or implied regarding: (1) publication of results; (2) sharing de-identified data; (3) data ownership; (4) confidentiality of identifiable data; and (5) whether the trial will produce knowledge that offers public benefit. Consensus was obtained from the two reviewers with the greatest overall agreement on all five measures. Disagreements were resolved through discussion among all authors.

RESULTS

Four (3%) trials indicated a commitment to publish trial results; 140 (97%) did not commit to publishing trial results; six (4%) indicated a commitment to share de-identified data with third party researchers. Commitments to share were more common in publicly funded trials than industry-funded trials (7% vs 3%). A total of 103 (72%) ICFs indicated the trials will or may produce knowledge that offers public benefits, while 131 (91%) ICFs left unstated who "owned" trial data; of those with statements, the sponsor always claimed ownership. Patient confidentiality was guaranteed in 137 (95%) trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that consent forms rarely disclose investigators' intentions regarding the sharing of de-identified data or publication of trial results.

A randomized controlled study of a consent intervention for participating in an NIH genome sequencing study

To make an informed choice to participate in a genome sequencing study that may yield primary and secondary findings, one understands relevant information in the context of personal values. Consent forms to enroll in a sequencing study can be long and complex. The efficacy of the professional encounter to consider the information contained in the consent form and make an informed choice is unknown. Women diagnosed with primary ovarian insufficiency and eligible for a sequencing study were randomized to participate in one of two encounters with a genetic counselor: a consent intervention using a lower literacy, less dense form or a standard consent encounter. Data were complete for 188 of 225 participants. The average time was 32 min for the intervention and 34 min for the standard, with the intervention encounter generating more questions from participants. At six weeks following consent, no differences were found between the two groups in primary outcomes: 'sequencing benefits' knowledge (d  =  0.12, 95%CI: -0.03,0.27), 'sequencing limitations' knowledge (d  =  0.04, 95%CI: -0.13,0.21), expected personal benefits (d  =  -0.01, 95%CI: -0.26,0.23), and decisional conflict (d =  0.04, 95%CI: -0.14,0.21). Although intentions to learn secondary variants were high, only 60% (113) of participants made an informed choice as defined by the multi-dimensional model of informed choice. We found that a modified consent intervention was as effective as a standard encounter and led to more interaction. Our data suggest that making decisions to receive secondary findings may be particularly challenging and in need of further investigation to achieve informed choice.

Who is willing to participate in low-risk pragmatic clinical trials without consent?

Purpose

General notification offers a possible alternative to written informed consent for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs). It involves patients being informed through brochures, posters, and letters that research is being conducted simultaneously to providing clinical care and that patients will be enrolled in pRCTs without study-specific consent. A previous survey found that a substantial minority of respondents endorsed general notification. We aimed to know who is willing to enroll in this type of trials using general notification rather than written consent.

Methods

The previous study was a cross-sectional, probability-based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design. Two scenarios were assessed: two low-risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing two drugs with similar benefit/risk ratio and the other taking the same drug in the morning or at night. Each scenario had two routes: written consent vs verbal consent and written consent vs general notification. In this study, we were interested in the latter route in both scenarios. Respondents’ preferences were measured based on their recommendation to the research ethics committee and the respondent’s personal preference. We aimed to investigate the characteristics of those supporting general notification in either outcome or the variables explaining consistency and inconsistency between their personal preference and their recommendation. Based on the results of the original survey, we aimed to have at least 200 inconsistent respondents; to this end, the sample size was increased accordingly in a second wave of the survey.

Results

One thousand six hundre and ten respondents were included; 1003 from the original survey and 607 new ones belonging to the second wave. Thirty-nine percent of respondents chose general notification as personal preference and/or recommendation. Respondents with lower education levels were more prone to accept general notification than those holding a university degree [OR (95% CI)], primary school [2.959 (2.069–4.232)], secondary school [2.899 (2.09–4.021)], or high school [1.620 (1.184–2.217)]. Also unemployed [1.372 (1.064–1.770)] and retired [1.445 (1.049–1.990)], but not students, showed preference for general notification in comparison with those employed. Individuals more than 24 years old and having received high school or university (or postgraduate) education were statistically significantly more consistent in their decisions.

Conclusions

Thirty-nine percent of respondents is open to not to be asked for their informed consent in low-risk pRCTs; of these, those being less educated and not having current job or being retired are significantly more open to general notification. The use of this alternative method to written consent for simultaneous conduct of pRCTs and care should be considered and educational programs settled up to, in the case of public acceptance, ensure its ethical appropriateness.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00228-017-2332-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Assessing informed consent in an opioid relapse prevention study with adults under current or recent criminal justice supervision

Concerns persist that individuals with substance use disorders who are under community criminal justice supervision experience circumstances that might compromise their provision of valid, informed consent for research participation. These concerns include the possibilities that desire to obtain access to treatment might lead individuals to ignore important information about research participation, including information about risks, or that cognitive impairment associated with substance use might interfere with attending to important information. We report results from a consent quiz (CQ) administered in a multisite randomized clinical trial of long-acting naltrexone to prevent relapse to opioid use disorder among adults under community criminal justice supervision-a treatment option difficult to access by this population of individuals. Participants were required to answer all 11 items correctly before randomization. On average, participants answered 9.8 items correctly (89%) at baseline first attempt (n=306). At week 21 (n=212), participants scored 87% (9.5 items correct) without review. Performance was equivalent to, or better than, published results from other populations on a basic consent quiz instrument across multiple content domains. The consent quiz is an efficient method to screen for adequate knowledge of consent information as part of the informed consent process. Clinical researchers who are concerned about these issues should consider using a consent quiz with corrected feedback to enhance the informed consent process. Overall, while primarily useful as an educational tool, employing a CQ as part of the gateway to participation in research may be particularly important as the field continues to advance and tests novel experimental treatments with significant risks and uncertain potential for benefit.