Implications of the Revised Common Rule for Human Participant Research

Survey of Informed Consent Procedures in Urology: Disclosing Resident Participation to Patients

AbstractThe American Urological Association (AUA) and American College of Surgeons (ACS) codes of professionalism require surgeons to disclose the specific roles and responsibilities of trainees to patients during the informed consent process. The objective of this study is to analyze how these requirements are met by urology training programs. An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to the program directors (PDs) of the 143 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education urology residency programs in the United States in 2021. Information was collected regarding program demographics, aspects of the program's consent process, and the disclosure to patients of the role and participation of residents in their surgery. There were 49 responses to the survey (34.3% response rate). Nearly 70 percent of PDs reported that attending physicians lead the consent process. The topics covered during consent discussion include possible complications (25%), expected recovery time (23%), length of the surgery (22%), the people involved (18%), and their specific roles (7%). Many PDs do not explicitly discuss trainee involvement (48.8%) or when a resident is to perform the majority of the case (87.8%). The majority of PDs (78.8%) communicate medical student involvement, but 73.2 percent reported having a patient decline participation of a trainee after describing their role. Despite the AUA and ACS codes of professionalism, many urologists do not disclose resident involvement in surgery to patients. Further discussions are needed to explore how to better balance resident education and patient autonomy.

Leveraging Interdisciplinary Teams to Develop and Implement Secure Websites for Behavioral Research: Applied Tutorial

Behavioral researchers are increasingly using interactive digital platforms, either as standalone or supplementary intervention tools, to facilitate positive changes in research participants’ health habits. Research-oriented interactive websites optimally offer a variety of participatory mediums, such as blogs, user-driven content, or health activities. Owing to the multidirectional features of interactive websites, and a corresponding need to protect research participants’ identity and data, it is paramount that researchers design ethical platforms that ensure privacy and minimize loss of anonymity and confidentiality. Authentication (ie, digital verification of one’s identity) of interactive sites is one viable solution to these concerns. Although previous publications have addressed ethical requirements related to authenticated platforms, few applied guidelines in the literature facilitate adherence to ethical principles and legally compliant study protocols during all phases of research website creation (feasibility, design, implementation, and maintenance). Notably, to remain compliant with ethical standards and study protocols, behavioral researchers must collaborate with interdisciplinary teams to ensure that the authenticated site remains secure and usable in all stages of the project. In this tutorial, we present a case study conducted at a large research university. Through iterative and practical recommendations, we detail lessons learned from collaborations with the Institutional Review Board, legal experts, and information technology teams. Although the intricacies of our applied tutorial may require adaptations based on each institution’s technological capacity, we are confident that the core takeaways are universal and thus useful to behavioral researchers creating ethically responsible and compliant interactive websites.

Revised Common Rule Changes to the Consent Process and Consent Form

Background: The Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects-the Common Rule-was revised in 2017 to reduce administrative burdens for low-risk research while enhancing protections for human subjects enrolled in greater-than-minimal-risk trials. These enhanced protections involve changes to the consent process. Methods: We review the general requirements applicable to the consent process, as well as the additional elements of consent mandated by the revisions to the Common Rule. The regulations apply to federally funded studies and are optional for non-federally funded studies. Results: Two new general requirements for the consent process, one basic required element for the consent form, and three optional additional elements for the consent form were added in an effort to improve potential subjects' understanding of research studies and to facilitate the exchange of information between the research staff and potential subjects. Important information about the study should be extracted into a concise key information section to help potential subjects make informed decisions regarding participation. Conclusion: The revisions to the Common Rule are intended to enhance human subject protection by providing more information in an understandable form during the consent process. The new consent elements aim to increase transparency and help improve clarity.