1
|
Cousins S, Huttman M, Blencowe N, Tsang C, Elliott D, Blazeby J, Beard DJ, Campbell MK, Gillies K. Patient information leaflets for placebo-controlled surgical trials: a review of current practice and recommendations for developers. Trials 2024; 25:339. [PMID: 38778336 PMCID: PMC11110406 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-024-08166-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2023] [Accepted: 05/10/2024] [Indexed: 05/25/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Informed consent for participation in an RCT is an important ethical and legal requirement. In placebo surgical trials, further issues are raised, and to date, this has not been explored. Patient information leaflets (PILs) are a core component of the informed consent process. This study aimed to investigate the key content of PILs for recently completed placebo-controlled trials of invasive procedures, including surgery, to highlight areas of good practice, identify gaps in information provision for trials of this type and provide recommendations for practice. METHODS PILs were sought from trials included in a recent systematic review of placebo-controlled trials of invasive procedures, including surgery. Trial characteristics and data on surgical and placebo interventions under evaluation were extracted. Directed content analysis was applied, informed by published regulatory and good practice guidance on PIL content and existing research on placebo-controlled surgical trials. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and presented as a narrative summary. RESULTS Of the 62 eligible RCTs, authors of 59 trials were contactable and 14 PILs were received for analysis. At least 50% of all PILs included content on general trial design. Explanations of how the placebo differs or is similar to the surgical intervention (i.e. fidelity) were reported in 6 (43%) of the included PILs. Over half (57%) of the PILs included information on the potential therapeutic benefits of the surgical intervention. One (7%) included information on potential indirect therapeutic benefits from invasive components of the placebo. Five (36%) presented the known risks of the placebo intervention, whilst 8 (57%) presented information on the known risks of the surgical intervention. A range of terms was used across the PILs to describe the placebo component, including 'control', 'mock' and 'sham'. CONCLUSION Developers of PILs for placebo-controlled surgical trials should carefully consider the use of language (e.g. sham, mock), be explicit about how the placebo differs (or is similar) to the surgical intervention and provide balanced presentations of potential benefits and risks of the surgical intervention separately from the placebo. Further research is required to determine optimal approaches to design and deliver this information for these trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Cousins
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre Surgical Innovation Theme, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - M Huttman
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre Surgical Innovation Theme, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - N Blencowe
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre Surgical Innovation Theme, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - C Tsang
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre Surgical Innovation Theme, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - D Elliott
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre Surgical Innovation Theme, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - J Blazeby
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre Surgical Innovation Theme, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- Royal College of Surgeons Surgical Trials Centre Bristol, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - D J Beard
- Royal College of Surgeons Surgical Trials Centre Oxford, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - M K Campbell
- Royal College of Surgeons Surgical Trials Centre Aberdeen, Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - K Gillies
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Dal-Ré R, Voo TC, Holm S. How WHO Solidarity Plus trial participants in countries on four continents are informed in writing. J Glob Health 2023; 13:04012. [PMID: 36655916 PMCID: PMC9850864 DOI: 10.7189/jogh.13.04012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
Background It is unknown if changes have been made to the original participant's information sheet/informed consent form (PIS/ICF) provided by the WHO Solidarity Plus team when it was transferred to participating countries. Methods National principal investigators from 30 countries were asked if the original PIS/ICF was edited in their countries and, if so, to share with us the one used to recruit participants. We assessed whether the 25 different elements of information from the good clinical practice guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki were present in, deficiently described, or absent from the PIS/ICFs. Results Nineteen national principal investigators responded: eight (Argentina, Brazil, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iran, Lebanon, Lithuania, and Malaysia) stated that no edits were introduced to the original PIS/ICF; eight (Canada, Colombia, Philippines, India, Ireland, Pakistan, Portugal, and Switzerland) added some elements of information in the national PIS/ICF; and three (Italy, Peru, and Spain) reported not participating in the trial. None of the elements included in the original PIS/ICF were omitted from the edited PIS/IFC. Six elements of information were omitted and five deficiently described in the original PIS/ICF. The number of elements omitted from the edited PIS/ICFs varied (range = 2-5). Nine PIS/ICFs incompletely described or omitted the informing of study participants about the study results, while five deficiently described or omitted the anticipated expenses for trial participation. Information concerning whom to contact for more information or in case of injury was deficient in six PIS/ICFs. Unlike the original PIS/ICF, all edited PIS/ICFs informed participants about the existence of compensation or treatment for any injury related to the trial. Conclusions WHO should consider adding three of the omitted elements in PIS/ICFs of future multinational similar trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rafael Dal-Ré
- Epidemiology Unit, Health Research Institute-Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
| | - Teck Chuan Voo
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Søren Holm
- Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, Department of Law, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
[Transparency in clinical research: What contribution does the new EU Regulation 536/2014 make?]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2023; 66:52-59. [PMID: 36512076 PMCID: PMC9832089 DOI: 10.1007/s00103-022-03631-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2022] [Accepted: 11/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Clinical studies can be more or less transparent in four areas: (a) study registration, (b) results reporting, (c) data/code sharing, and (d) study-related documents. This discussion paper explains the extent to which the EU Regulation 536/2014 (Clinical Trials Regulation - CTR) has already positively impacted the area of results reporting in interventional drug trials and how it can improve the availability of study-related documents for independent research in the future.As this positive trend exists only for the area of results reporting and for the subset of interventional drug trials addressed by the CTR so far, a problematic two-class transparency seems to be developing that distinguishes between clinical studies addressed by the CTR and the other clinical studies. Independently of the CTR, academic institutions, funders, and ethics committees should therefore address all four abovementioned areas of transparency in all clinical studies. Monitoring the implementation of transparency in clinical studies would be an important first step in order to specify the need for action. An innovation in the context of transparency of clinical trials could also arise from the fact that the new EU Portal Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) according to the CTR makes study-related informed consent documents, study protocols, and the investigator's brochures more transparent. This would for the first time open up the opportunity of independent research and quality assurance on issues of informed consent and harm-benefit assessment in clinical research.
Collapse
|
4
|
Carroll K, Hudek N, Bénard A, Presseau J, Richards DP, Susan M, Fergusson DA, Graham ID, Mestre TA, Brehaut JC. Supporting Trial Participation in People with the Huntington's Gene: A Patient-Centered, Theory-Guided Survey of Barriers and Enablers. J Huntingtons Dis 2022; 11:421-434. [PMID: 36155526 DOI: 10.3233/jhd-220541] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Under-recruitment regularly impedes clinical trials, leading to wasted resources and opportunity costs. Methods for designing trial participation strategies rarely consider behavior change theory. OBJECTIVE Informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, we identified factors important to participating in Huntington's disease research and provide examples of how such a theory-informed approach can make specific suggestions about how to design targeted recruitment strategies. METHODS We identified a range of trial participation barriers and enablers based on interviews of key informants and implemented an online survey of members of the Huntington's disease community, asking them to rate the extent to which different factors would affect likelihood to participate in a generic Huntington's disease trial. RESULTS From 4,195 members, we received 323 responses and 243 completed surveys (323/4,195 or 8% participation, 243/323 or 75% completion). Respondents endorsed 9 barriers and 23 enablers relevant to trial participation. Most frequently endorsed barriers were travel to the study site (69%), worry about unknown side effects (65%), trial documents being difficult to understand (64%), and participation affecting other activities (49%). Enablers included optimism about likelihood of trial participation leading to a cure (98%), helping others (98%), contributing to science (97%), and having helpful people available to help with the participation decision (89%). CONCLUSION Our theory-informed survey to identify barriers to and enablers of Huntington's disease trial participation identified 32 factors, from 13 theoretical domains relevant to trial participation, and suggests effective approaches for improving trial participation and patient experience.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kelly Carroll
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Natasha Hudek
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Angèle Bénard
- Huntington Society of Canada (HSC), Waterloo, ON, Canada
| | - Justin Presseau
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.,School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | | | - Marlin Susan
- Clinical Trials Ontario, MaRS Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Dean A Fergusson
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.,School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Ian D Graham
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.,School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Tiago A Mestre
- Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders Centre, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa Brain and Mind Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Jamie C Brehaut
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.,School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Gangeri L, Alfieri S, Greco M, Scrignaro M, Bianchi E, Casali P, Ferraris D, Borreani C. Expectations, experiences and preferences of patients and physicians in the informed consent process for clinical trials in oncology. Support Care Cancer 2021; 30:1911-1921. [PMID: 34618238 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-021-06599-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2021] [Accepted: 09/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The aim of the present study was to explore (1) informed consent (IC) representations, level of understanding, needs, and factors that influence the willingness of cancer patients to participate in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (phase I) and (2) representations, experiences, and critical issues of physicians involved in the same process (phase II). METHODS Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 cancer patients who had been asked to enroll in a phase II/III RCT (phase I). Two focus groups were conducted with 13 physicians enrolled in the same process (phase II). The content produced was analyzed through a thematic analysis. RESULTS The themes that emerged in the first phase I were grouped into six categories: IC representation, randomization, experimentation, meeting with the physician, factors that influence the willingness to participate, and trial participants' needs. The themes emerged in the phase II were grouped into four: IC representation, critical issues of the IC, relationship, and recruitment of trial participants. Each theme is articulated into sub-themes and deeply discussed. CONCLUSION This study highlights (1) the gap between what is ethically demanded in a RCT consultation and the reality of the situation and (2) the difference in perceptions between patients and physicians with reference to the meaning, objectives, and level of understanding of IC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura Gangeri
- Clinical Psychology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Sara Alfieri
- Clinical Psychology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
| | - Margherita Greco
- Clinical Psychology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Marta Scrignaro
- Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Elisabetta Bianchi
- Clinical Psychology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Paolo Casali
- Adult Mesenchymal Tumour Medical Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Davide Ferraris
- Lega Italiana per la Lotta contro i Tumori (LILT), Milan, Italy
| | - Claudia Borreani
- Clinical Psychology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Brehaut JC, Lavin Venegas C, Hudek N, Presseau J, Carroll K, Rodger M. Using behavioral theory and shared decision-making to understand clinical trial recruitment: interviews with trial recruiters. Trials 2021; 22:298. [PMID: 33883012 PMCID: PMC8058968 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-021-05257-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2020] [Accepted: 04/09/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinical trial recruitment is a continuing challenge for medical researchers. Previous efforts to improve study recruitment have rarely been informed by theories of human decision making and behavior change. We investigate the trial recruitment strategies reported by study recruiters, guided by two influential theoretical frameworks: shared decision-making (SDM) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) in order to explore the utility of these frameworks in trial recruitment. METHODS We interviewed all nine active study recruiters from a multi-site, open-label pilot trial assessing the feasibility of a large-scale randomized trial. Recruiters were primarily nurses or master's-level research assistants with a range of 3 to 30 years of experience. The semi-structured interviews included questions about the typical recruitment encounter, questions concerning the main components of SDM (e.g. verifying understanding, directive vs. non-directive style), and questions investigating the barriers to and drivers of their recruitment activities, based on the TDF. We used directed content analysis to code quotations into TDF domains, followed by inductive thematic analysis to code quotations into sub-themes within domains and overarching themes across TDF domains. Responses to questions related to SDM were aggregated according to level of endorsement and informed the thematic analysis. RESULTS The analysis helped to identify 28 sub-themes across 11 domains. The sub-themes were organized into six overarching themes: coordinating between people, providing guidance to recruiters about challenges, providing resources to recruiters, optimizing study flow, guiding the recruitment decision, and emphasizing the benefits to participation. The SDM analysis revealed recruiters were able to view recruitment interactions as successful even when enrollment did not proceed, and most recruiters took a non-directive (i.e. providing patients with balanced information on available options) or mixed approach over a directive approach (i.e. focus on enrolling patient in study). Most of the core SDM constructs were frequently endorsed. CONCLUSIONS Identified sub-themes can be linked to TDF domains for which effective behavior change interventions are known, yielding interventions that can be evaluated as to whether they improve recruitment. Despite having no formal training in shared decision-making, study recruiters reported practices consistent with many elements of SDM. The development of SDM training materials specific to trial recruitment could improve the informed decision-making process for patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie C Brehaut
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada.
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Carolina Lavin Venegas
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Natasha Hudek
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Justin Presseau
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kelly Carroll
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Marc Rodger
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Kahrass H, Bossert S, Schürmann C, Strech D. Details of risk-benefit communication in informed consent documents for phase I/II trials. Clin Trials 2020; 18:71-80. [PMID: 33231107 PMCID: PMC7876653 DOI: 10.1177/1740774520971770] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Informed consent documents for clinical studies should disclose all reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits. Little guidance exists on how to navigate the complexities of risk-benefit communication, especially in early clinical research. Practice-oriented development of such guidance should be informed by evidence on what and how details of risks and benefits are currently communicated. METHOD We surveyed the responsible parties of phase I/II trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov that started 2007 or later and completed between 2012 and 2016 to sample informed consent documents from a broad spectrum of early phase clinical trials. Based on an assessment matrix, we qualitatively and quantitatively assessed the informed consent documents for details of risk-benefit communication. RESULTS The risk-benefit communication in the 172 informed consent documents differed substantially in several regards. The outcome, extent, and likelihood of health risks, for example, were described in 83%, 32%, and 63% of the informed consent documents. Only 45% of informed consent documents specified the outcome of mentioned health benefits, and the extent and likelihood of health benefits were never specified. From those informed consent documents reporting risk likelihoods, only 57% added frequency numbers to words such as "common" or "rare," and even in these cases, we found strong variations for presented frequency ranges. Substantial heterogeneity also exists for how informed consent documents communicate other risk and benefit types and related safeguards. CONCLUSION Our study points to several shortcomings and heterogeneities in how informed consent documents communicate risks and benefits to potential research participants. Health risks, for example, should be specified with frequency numbers, and health benefits should be specified at least by mentioning their outcomes. Further demand for research and policy development is needed to harmonize risk-benefit communication and to clarify ways to specify the likelihood of health benefits.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannes Kahrass
- Institute for History, Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | - Sabine Bossert
- Institute for History, Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.,Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany
| | - Christopher Schürmann
- Institute for History, Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | - Daniel Strech
- Institute for History, Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.,QUEST Center, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Berlin, Germany.,Charité-Universitätsmedizin-Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Beskow LM, Hammack-Aviran CM, Brelsford KM. Developing model biobanking consent language: what matters to prospective participants? BMC Med Res Methodol 2020; 20:119. [PMID: 32414333 PMCID: PMC7227271 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-020-01001-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2019] [Accepted: 04/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Efforts to improve informed consent have led to calls for providing information a reasonable person would want to have, in a way that facilitates understanding of the reasons why one might or might not want to participate. At the same time, advances in large-scale genomic research have expanded both the opportunities and the risks for participants, families, and communities. To advance the use of effective consent materials that reflect this landscape, we used empirical data to develop model consent language, as well as brief questions to assist people in thinking about their own values relative to participation. METHODS We conducted in-person interviews to gather preliminary input on these materials from a diverse sample (n = 32) of the general population in Nashville, Tennessee. We asked them to highlight information they found especially reassuring or concerning, their hypothetical willingness to participate, and their opinions about the values questions. RESULTS Consent information most often highlighted as reassuring included the purpose of the biobank, the existence and composition of a multidisciplinary oversight committee, the importance of participants' privacy and efforts to protect it, and controlled access to a scientific database. Information most often highlighted as concerning included the deposition of data in a publicly accessible database, the risk of unintended access to data, the potential for non-research use of data, and use of medical record information in general. Seventy-five percent of participants indicated initial willingness to participate in the hypothetical biobank; this decreased to 66% as participants more closely considered the information over the course of the interview. A large majority rated the values questions as helpful. CONCLUSIONS These results are consistent with other research on public perspectives on biobanking and genomic cohort studies, suggesting that our model language effectively captures commonly expressed reasons for and against participation. Our study enriches this literature by connecting specific consent form disclosures with qualitative data regarding what participants found especially reassuring or concerning and why. Interventions that facilitate individuals' closer engagement with consent information may result in participation decisions more closely aligned with their values.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura M Beskow
- Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 400, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA.
| | - Catherine M Hammack-Aviran
- Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 400, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA
| | - Kathleen M Brelsford
- Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 400, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Hagopian CO, Ades TB, Hagopian TM, Wolfswinkel EM, Stevens WG. Attitudes, Beliefs, and Practices of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons Regarding Informed Consent. Aesthet Surg J 2020; 40:437-447. [PMID: 31361808 DOI: 10.1093/asj/sjz206] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Best practice for informed consent in aesthetic plastic surgery is a process of shared decision-making, yet evidence strongly suggests this is not commonly reflected in practice nor is it supported by traditional informed consent documents (ICD). Falsely held beliefs by clinicians about shared decision-making may contribute to its lack of adoption. OBJECTIVE The authors sought to understand the baseline attitudes, beliefs, and practices of informed consent among board-certified plastic surgeons with a primarily aesthetics practice. METHODS A 15-question online survey was emailed to active members of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. Items included demographics, Likert scales, free-text, acceptability, and 1 question seeking consensus on general information all patients must understand before any surgery. RESULTS This survey yielded a 13% response rate with a 52% completion rate across 10 countries and 31 US states. A total of 69% were very or extremely confident that ICD contain evidence-based information, but 63% were not at all or not so confident in ICD effectiveness of prompting patients to teach-back essential information. A total of 50% believed surgical ICD should be reviewed annually. Eighty-six percent reported assistance with patient education during informed consent. Members of professional plastic surgery societies should be a source of evidence for content (free-text). A total of 64% were somewhat to very satisfied with the survey and 84% will probably to definitely participate in future related surveys. CONCLUSIONS The findings echo concerns in the literature that ICD are focused on disclosure instead of patient understanding. There is notable concern regarding information overload and retention but less regarding the quality and completeness of information. Current culture suggests key clinician stakeholders are amenable to change.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Teresa B Ades
- Accelerated MSN Program Director, Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | - Thomas M Hagopian
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Erik M Wolfswinkel
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
| | - W Grant Stevens
- Director of the Aesthetic Surgery Fellowship, University of Southern California School of Medicine, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Los Angeles, CA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
The authors reply. Crit Care Med 2019; 46:e815-e816. [PMID: 30004976 DOI: 10.1097/ccm.0000000000003212] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
11
|
Informed Consent Documents Used in Critical Care Trials Often Do Not Implement Recommendations. Crit Care Med 2019; 46:e111-e117. [PMID: 29088004 DOI: 10.1097/ccm.0000000000002815] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Informed consent documents are often poorly understood by research participants. In critical care, issues such as time pressure, patient capacity, and surrogate decision making complicate the consent process further. Recommendations exist for addressing critical care-specific consent issues; we examined how well existing practice implements these recommendations. DESIGN We conducted a systematic search of the literature for recommendations specific to critical care informed consent and rated existing informed consent documents on their implementation of 1) 18 of these critical care recommendations and 2) 36 previously developed general informed consent recommendations. Four hundred twelve registered critical care trials were identified and a request sent to the principal investigators for an example of the informed consent document associated with the trial. Each consent document was rated on both set of recommendations. SETTING We evaluated informed consent documents for trials conducted in English or French registered with clinicaltrials.gov. PATIENTS Not applicable. INTERVENTIONS Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Independent coders rated implementation of each recommendation on a four-point scale. Of 412 requests, 137 informed consent documents were returned, for a response rate of 34.1%. Of these, 86 met inclusion criteria and were assessed. Overall agreement between raters was 90.6% (weighted κ = 0.79; 0.77-0.81). Implementation of the 18 critical care recommendations was highly variable, ranging between 2% and 96.5%. CONCLUSIONS Critical care studies often do not provide the information recommended for those providing consent for research. These clear recommendations provide testable hypotheses about how to improve the consent process for patients and family members considering trial participation in the critical care setting.
Collapse
|
12
|
|
13
|
Lochmüller H, Ambrosini A, van Engelen B, Hansson M, Tibben A, Breukel A, Sterrenburg E, Schrijvers G, Meijer I, Padberg G, Peay H, Monaco L, Snape M, Lennox A, Mazzone E, Bere N, de Lemus M, Landfeldt E, Willmann R. The Position of Neuromuscular Patients in Shared Decision Making. Report from the 235th ENMC Workshop: Milan, Italy, January 19-20, 2018. J Neuromuscul Dis 2019; 6:161-172. [PMID: 30714970 DOI: 10.3233/jnd-180368] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
In the era of patient-centered medicine, shared decision-making (SDM) - in which healthcare professionals and patients exchange information and preferences and jointly reach a decision - has emerged as the gold standard model for the provision of formal healthcare. Indeed, in many geographical settings, patients are frequently invited to participate in choices concerning the design and delivery of their medical management. From a clinical perspective, benefits of this type of patient involvement encompass, for example, enhanced treatment satisfaction, improved medical compliance, better health outcomes, and maintained or promoted quality of life. Yet, although the theory and enactment of SDM in healthcare are well-described in the literature [1-3], comparatively less attention has been devoted to contextualizing questions relating to if, when, and how to include patients in decisions within medical research. In this context, patient involvement would be expected to be potentially relevant for and applicable to a wide range of activities and processes, from the identification of research priorities and development of grant applications, to the design of patient information and consent procedures, formulation of interventions, identification and recruitment of study sample populations, feasibility of a clinical trial, identification, selection, and specification of endpoints and outcomes in clinical trials and observational studies, data collection and analysis, and dissemination of results. To this end, 45 clinicians, healthcare professionals, researchers, patients, caregivers, and representatives from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies from 15 different countries met to discuss the level of involvement of patients with neuromuscular diseases, specifically in the following settings of medical research for neuromuscular diseases: i) registries and biobanks; ii) clinical trials; and iii) regulatory processes. In this report, we present summaries of the talks that were given during the workshop, as well as discussion outcomes from the three topic areas listed above.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hanns Lochmüller
- Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada and Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada; Department of Neuropediatrics and Muscle Disorders, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, Freiburg, Germany
| | | | - Baziel van Engelen
- Department of Neurology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | | | - Aad Tibben
- Centre for Human and Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | - Ingeborg Meijer
- Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), University of Leiden, Leiden, the Netherlands and Spierziekten Nederland, Baarn, the Netherlands
| | - George Padberg
- Centre for Human and Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Holly Peay
- RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | | | | | | | - Elena Mazzone
- Department of Child Neurology, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
| | - Nathalie Bere
- Public Engagement, European Medicines Agency, London, UK
| | | | - Erik Landfeldt
- Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; and Icon plc, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Raffaella Willmann
- Swiss Foundation for Research on Muscle Diseases, Cortaillod, Switzerland
| | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
"Tell me what you suggest, and let's do that, doctor": Patient deliberation time during informal decision-making in clinical trials. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0211338. [PMID: 30695047 PMCID: PMC6350979 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211338] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2018] [Accepted: 01/12/2019] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Informed consent is an essential part of an ethical clinical trial; to this end, researchers have developed several interventions to promote participants’ full understanding of trials and thereby improve the consent process. However, few empirical studies have examined how patients make the decision of whether to give consent. The objective of this study, therefore, is to analyze patients’ decision-making process when participating in clinical trials. We conduct an internet survey (n = 2,045) and interview data analysis (n = 40) with patients and categorize respondents into three types of participants: active, passive, and non-participation. Our results show that patients often make informal and quick decisions before medical staff provide them with relevant information during the informed consent process. For example, 55.9% of patients received initial information on clinical trials from an online article or web advertising, and 54.5% consulted no one about whether to participate in the clinical trial before making a decision. Only 20.7% of respondents subjectively spent time making the decision whether to participate; 43.0% of patients who said that they “spent time” coming to a decision took four or more days to reach a decision, while 8.3% of people who “did not spend time” making a decision took this among of time. Based on these results, we were able to break patients’ decision-making process into four steps: first contact, informal decision making, relevant information, and formal decision making. Our results show that patients are most likely to make a decision based on the first information they receive on the clinical trial, whatever the source. To this end, having a list of questions for potential participants to ask researchers would be useful in helping better collecting information of clinical trials. In addition, research teams should give patients more than four days to decide between providing them with relevant information and obtaining written consent, even if the patient seems to make a quick decision.
Collapse
|
15
|
Alexa-Stratulat T, Neagu M, Neagu AI, Alexa ID, Ioan BG. Consent for participating in clinical trials - Is it really informed? Dev World Bioeth 2018; 18:299-306. [PMID: 29933502 PMCID: PMC6156924 DOI: 10.1111/dewb.12199] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
The article explores the challenges of ensuring voluntary and informed consent which is obtained from potential research subjects in the north-eastern part of Romania. This study is one of the first empirical papers of this nature in Romania. The study used a quantitative survey design using the adapted Quality of Informed Consent (QuIC) questionnaire. The target population consisted of 100 adult persons who voluntarily enrolled in clinical trials. The informed consent form must contain details regarding the potential risks and benefits, the aim of the clinical trial, study design, confidentiality, insurance and contact details in case of additional questions. Our study confirmed that although all required information was included in the ICF, few clinical trial participants truly understood it. We also found that the most important predictive factor for a good subjective and objective understanding of the clinical trial was the level of education. Our study suggests that researchers should consider putting more effort in order to help clinical trials participants achieve a better understanding of the informed consent. In this way they will ensure that participants' decision-making is meaningful and that their interests are protected.
Collapse
|
16
|
NAKADA H, YOSHIDA S, ARITA E, MUTO K. The Timing of Decision-Making and Informed Consent : Patients' Perspective and Experiences of Clinical Trials in Japan . ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2017. [DOI: 10.3999/jscpt.48.31] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Haruka NAKADA
- Department of Public Policy, Human Genome Center, The Institute of Medical Science, The University of Tokyo
| | - Sachie YOSHIDA
- Department of Public Policy, Human Genome Center, The Institute of Medical Science, The University of Tokyo
| | - Etsuko ARITA
- Department of Medical Psychology, Pharmaceutical Education Research Center, Kitasato University School of Pharmacy
| | - Kaori MUTO
- Department of Public Policy, Human Genome Center, The Institute of Medical Science, The University of Tokyo
| |
Collapse
|