1
|
Cohen E, Byrom B, Becher A, Jörntén-Karlsson M, Mackenzie AK. Comparative Effectiveness of eConsent: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res 2023; 25:e43883. [PMID: 37656499 PMCID: PMC10504628 DOI: 10.2196/43883] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2022] [Revised: 04/24/2023] [Accepted: 06/27/2023] [Indexed: 09/02/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Providing informed consent means agreeing to participate in a clinical trial and having understood what is involved. Flawed informed consent processes, including missing dates and signatures, are common regulatory audit findings. Electronic consent (eConsent) uses digital technologies to enable the consenting process. It aims to improve participant comprehension and engagement with study information and to address data quality concerns. OBJECTIVE This systematic literature review aimed to assess the effectiveness of eConsent in terms of patient comprehension, acceptability, usability, and study enrollment and retention rates, as well as the effects of eConsent on the time patients took to perform the consenting process ("cycle time") and on-site workload in comparison with traditional paper-based consenting. METHODS The systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Ovid Embase and Ovid MEDLINE were systematically searched for publications reporting original, comparative data on the effectiveness of eConsent in terms of patient comprehension, acceptability, usability, enrollment and retention rates, cycle time, and site workload. The methodological validity of the studies that compared outcomes for comprehension, acceptability, and usability across paper consent and eConsent was assessed. Study methodologies were categorized as having "high" validity if comprehensive assessments were performed using established instruments. RESULTS Overall, 37 publications describing 35 studies (13,281 participants) were included. All studies comparing eConsenting and paper-based consenting for comprehension (20/35, 57% of the studies; 10 with "high" validity), acceptability (8/35, 23% of the studies; 1 with "high" validity), and usability (5/35, 14% of the studies; 1 with "high" validity) reported significantly better results with eConsent, better results but without significance testing, or no significant differences in overall results. None of the studies reported better results with paper than with eConsent. Among the "high" validity studies, 6 studies on comprehension reported significantly better understanding of at least some concepts, the study on acceptability reported statistically significant higher satisfaction scores, and the study on usability reported statistically significant higher usability scores with eConsent than with paper (P<.05 for all). Cycle times were increased with eConsent, potentially reflecting greater patient engagement with the content. Data on enrollment and retention were limited. Comparative data from site staff and other study researchers indicated the potential for reduced workload and lower administrative burden with eConsent. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review showed that compared with patients using paper-based consenting, patients using eConsent had a better understanding of the clinical trial information, showed greater engagement with content, and rated the consenting process as more acceptable and usable. eConsent solutions thus have the potential to enhance understanding, acceptability, and usability of the consenting process while inherently being able to address data quality concerns, including those related to flawed consenting processes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Anja Becher
- Oxford PharmaGenesis, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
McGowan CR, Ekoriko P, Alhaffar M, Cassidy-Seyoum S, Whitbread S, Rogers P, Bell L, Checchi F. Design and implementation of a web-based, respondent-driven sampling solution. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2023; 23:113. [PMID: 37407971 PMCID: PMC10320937 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-023-02217-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2023] [Accepted: 06/26/2023] [Indexed: 07/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) refers both to a chain-referral sampling method and an analytical model for analysing sampled data. Web-based respondent-driven sampling (webRDS) uses internet-based recruitment coupled with an electronic survey to carry out RDS studies; there is currently no commercially available webRDS solution. We designed and developed a webRDS solution to support a research study aimed at estimating conflict-attributable mortality in Yemen. Our webRDS solution is composed of an existing survey platform (i.e. ODK) and a bespoke RDS system. The RDS system is designed to administer and manage an RDS survey cascade and includes: (1) an application programming interface, (2) a study participant client, and (3) an administrator interface. We report here on the design of the webRDS solution and its implementation. RESULTS We consulted members of the Yemeni diaspora throughout the development of the solution. Technical obstacles were largely the result of: WhatsApp's policies on bulk messaging and automated messaging behaviour, the inherent constraints of SMS messaging, and SMS filtering behaviour. Language support was straight-forward yet time consuming. Survey uptake was lower than expected. Factors which may have impacted uptake include: our use of consumable survey links, low interest amongst the diaspora population, lack of material incentives, and the length and subject matter of the survey itself. The SMS/WhatsApp messaging integration was relatively complex and limited the information we could send potential participants. CONCLUSION Despite lower-than expected survey uptake we believe our webRDS solution provides efficient and flexible means to survey a globally diverse population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Catherine R McGowan
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and International Health, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
| | - Promise Ekoriko
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and International Health, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK
- Information Technology Services, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK
| | - Mervat Alhaffar
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and International Health, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK
| | - Sarah Cassidy-Seyoum
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and International Health, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK
| | - Steven Whitbread
- Information Technology Services, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK
| | - Phil Rogers
- Information Technology Services, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK
| | - Lucy Bell
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and International Health, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK
| | - Francesco Checchi
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and International Health, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Nair G, Kabanda SM, Jacobs-Alfred MM, Obasa AE, McCaul MG, Moodley K. Electronic consent in a COVID-19 vaccine implementation trial in South Africa: Participant perspectives. S AFR J SCI 2022. [DOI: 10.17159/sajs.2022/13048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has warranted modifications to clinical research implementation to ensure adherence to public health and safety measures. Often, this modification has necessitated a deviation from the traditional face-to-face approach to an electronic or hybrid consent process. We assessed the acceptability and preference for electronic consent and explored understanding of the electronic consent information – an outcome which is vital in providing reassurance that consent is provided with full appreciation of the risks and benefits of study participation. In this descriptive study, healthcare professionals (HCPs) were invited, through a database of HCP contacts, snowball sampling and advertisement, to participate in an online survey between 14 July 2021 and 17 September 2021, to explore their experiences of providing electronic consent for enrolment into the largest implementation trial of a COVID vaccine in South Africa (SISONKE Trial). Descriptive analysis was used to characterise respondents and categorical data were expressed as frequencies. The prevalence of recurring responses to open-ended questions allowed for the identification of themes. A total of 1025 HCPs completed the online survey. Access to a COVID-19 vaccine was the strongest motivating factor for enrolment (82.3%) into the SISONKE Trial. Over a third of participants (38.6%) were not able to discuss the study with research staff. While the majority of participants (85.2%) indicated that online consent was acceptable, it was recognised that acceptability was context specific. Although 64% indicated awareness that reporting both a positive COVID test and adverse events were requirements, a significant percentage (32%) did not recall that the reporting period was 2 years. The electronic consent process was easily navigated by educated HCPs with access to electronic devices and data. Vaccine access was the most important motivation for participation, thus raising questions about how voluntary the consent process was and the role of desperation in deciding to participate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gonasagrie Nair
- Centre for Medical Ethics and Law, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Siti M. Kabanda
- Centre for Medical Ethics and Law, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
| | | | - Adetayo E.A. Obasa
- Centre for Medical Ethics and Law, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Michael G. McCaul
- Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Global Health, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Keymanthri Moodley
- Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Global Health, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Skelton E, Drey N, Rutherford M, Ayers S, Malamateniou C. Electronic consenting for conducting research remotely: A review of current practice and key recommendations for using e-consenting. Int J Med Inform 2020; 143:104271. [PMID: 32979650 PMCID: PMC7487205 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104271] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/04/2020] [Revised: 08/20/2020] [Accepted: 09/09/2020] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Electronic approaches are becoming more widely used to obtain informed consent for research participation. Electronic consent (e-consent) provides an accessible and versatile approach to the consenting process, which can be enhanced with audio-visual and interactive features to improve participant engagement and comprehension of study procedures. Best practice guidance underpinned by ethical principles is required to ensure effective implementation of e-consent for use in research. AIM To identify the key considerations for successful and ethical implementation of e-consent in the recruitment of participants to research projects which are conducted remotely. METHODS Electronic database searches of CINAHL, Medline, Embase, DARE, HTA, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, NHS Evidence, and hand-searches of reference lists were performed. Primary research studies of adult (≥ 18 years old) research participants using e-consent, published in English language, peer-reviewed journals between 2010-2020 were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS Of the initial 665 identified studies, 18 met the inclusion criteria: 6 cohort studies, 5 qualitative studies, 4 randomised control trials, 2 mixed-methods studies and one case-control study. Critical appraisal of included studies using Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) tools suggested a low to moderate risk of bias in most studies (n = 15). Key practice recommendations for researchers using e-consent were identified around five primary themes: 1) accessibility and user-friendliness of e-consent, 2) user engagement and comprehension, 3) customisability to participant preferences and demographics, 4) data security and 5) impact on research teams. CONCLUSION E-consenting approaches are generally well received by participants, with most studies reporting user-friendly interfaces and sufficient participant comprehension of consenting documentation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE E-consent may facilitate remotely-conducted research by offering a feasible and robust alternative to face-to-face consenting approaches, however paper-based options should still be offered, based on participant preference. Customising e-consenting platforms may improve accessibility for individuals with specific needs, and increase engagement with study information. Research teams must offer prospective participants opportunities to discuss study information in real-time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily Skelton
- Division of Radiography and Midwifery, City, University of London, UK; Department of Perinatal Imaging and Health, King's College London, UK.
| | | | - Mary Rutherford
- Department of Perinatal Imaging and Health, King's College London, UK
| | - Susan Ayers
- Division of Radiography and Midwifery, City, University of London, UK
| | - Christina Malamateniou
- Division of Radiography and Midwifery, City, University of London, UK; Department of Perinatal Imaging and Health, King's College London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
De Sutter E, Zaçe D, Boccia S, Di Pietro ML, Geerts D, Borry P, Huys I. Implementation of Electronic Informed Consent in Biomedical Research and Stakeholders' Perspectives: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22:e19129. [PMID: 33030440 PMCID: PMC7582148 DOI: 10.2196/19129] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2020] [Revised: 08/07/2020] [Accepted: 08/17/2020] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Informed consent is one of the key elements in biomedical research. The introduction of electronic informed consent can be a way to overcome many challenges related to paper-based informed consent; however, its novel opportunities remain largely unfulfilled due to several barriers. Objective We aimed to provide an overview of the ethical, legal, regulatory, and user interface perspectives of multiple stakeholder groups in order to assist responsible implementation of electronic informed consent in biomedical research. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search using Web of Science (Core collection), PubMed, EMBASE, ACM Digital Library, and PsycARTICLES. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were used for reporting this work. We included empirical full-text studies focusing on the concept of electronic informed consent in biomedical research covering the ethical, legal, regulatory, and user interface domains. Studies written in English and published from January 2010 onward were selected. We explored perspectives of different stakeholder groups, in particular researchers, research participants, health authorities, and ethics committees. We critically appraised literature included in the systematic review using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort and cross-sectional studies, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for qualitative studies, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for mixed methods studies, and Jadad tool for randomized controlled trials. Results A total of 40 studies met our inclusion criteria. Overall, the studies were heterogeneous in the type of study design, population, intervention, research context, and the tools used. Most of the studies’ populations were research participants (ie, patients and healthy volunteers). The majority of studies addressed barriers to achieving adequate understanding when using electronic informed consent. Concerns shared by multiple stakeholder groups were related to the security and legal validity of an electronic informed consent platform and usability for specific groups of research participants. Conclusions Electronic informed consent has the potential to improve the informed consent process in biomedical research compared to the current paper-based consent. The ethical, legal, regulatory, and user interface perspectives outlined in this review might serve to enhance the future implementation of electronic informed consent. Trial Registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020158979; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=158979
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Evelien De Sutter
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Drieda Zaçe
- Section of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy
| | - Stefania Boccia
- Section of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy.,Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy
| | - Maria Luisa Di Pietro
- Section of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy
| | - David Geerts
- Meaningful Interactions Lab, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Pascal Borry
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Isabelle Huys
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|