Improved informed consent documents for biomedical research do not increase patients' understanding but reduce enrolment: a study in real settings

Describing the content of trial recruitment interventions using the TIDieR reporting checklist: a systematic methodology review

BACKGROUND

Recruiting participants to clinical trials is an ongoing challenge, and relatively little is known about what recruitment strategies lead to better recruitment. Recruitment interventions can be considered complex interventions, often involving multiple components, targeting a variety of groups, and tailoring to different groups. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) reporting checklist (which comprises 12 items recommended for reporting complex interventions) to guide the assessment of how recruitment interventions are described. We aimed to (1) examine to what extent we could identify information about each TIDieR item within recruitment intervention studies, and (2) observe additional detail for each item to describe useful variation among these studies.

METHODS

We identified randomized, nested recruitment intervention studies providing recruitment or willingness to participate rates from two sources: a Cochrane review of trials evaluating strategies to improve recruitment to randomized trials, and the Online Resource for Research in Clinical triAls database. First, we assessed to what extent authors reported information about each TIDieR item. Second, we developed descriptive categorical variables for 7 TIDieR items and extracting relevant quotes for the other 5 items.

RESULTS

We assessed 122 recruitment intervention studies. We were able to extract information relevant to most TIDieR items (e.g., brief rationale, materials, procedure) with the exception of a few items that were only rarely reported (e.g., tailoring, modifications, planned/actual fidelity). The descriptive variables provided a useful overview of study characteristics, with most studies using various forms of informational interventions (55%) delivered at a single time point (90%), often by a member of the research team (59%) in a clinical care setting (41%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our TIDieR-based variables provide a useful description of the core elements of complex trial recruitment interventions. Recruitment intervention studies report core elements of complex interventions variably; some process elements (e.g., mode of delivery, location) are almost always described, while others (e.g., duration, fidelity) are reported infrequently, with little indication of a reason for their absence. Future research should explore whether these TIDieR-based variables can form the basis of an approach to better reporting of elements of successful recruitment interventions.

Assessment of the appropriateness of the i-CONSENT guidelines recommendations for improving understanding of the informed consent process in clinical studies

BACKGROUND

The H2020 i-CONSENT project has developed a set of guidelines that offer ethical recommendations and practical tools aimed at making the informed consent process in clinical studies more comprehensive, tailored, and inclusive. An analysis of the appropriateness of some of its novel recommendations was carried out by a group of experts representing different stakeholders.

METHODS

An adaptation of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to assess the level of agreement on the recommendations among 14 representatives of different stakeholders, including patients, regulators, investigators, ethics experts, and the pharmaceutical industry. The process included two rounds of rating and a virtual meeting.

RESULTS

Fifty-three recommendations were evaluated. After the first round, 34 recommendations were judged "appropriate"; 19 were judged "uncertain"; and none was judged "inappropriate". After the second round, 9 "uncertains" changed to "appropriate". All recommendations rated medians of 6.5-9 on a 1-9 scale (1 = "extremely inappropriate", 5 = "uncertain", 9 = "extremely appropriate"). The sections "General recommendations" and "Gender perspective during the consent process for clinical studies" showed the highest "uncertainty" rating. The four keys to improving the understanding of the ICP in clinical studies are to: (1) consider consent a two-way continuous interaction that begins at the first contact with the potential participant and continues until the end of the study; (2) improve investigators' communication skills; (3) co-create the information; and (4) use a layered approach, including information to compensate for the potential participant's possible lack of health literacy and a glossary of terms.

CONCLUSIONS

The RAND/UCLA method has demonstrated validity for assessing the appropriateness of recommendations in ethical guidelines. The recommendations of the i-CONSENT guidelines were mostly judged "appropriate" by all stakeholders involved in the informed consent process.

Reshaping the review of consent so we might improve participant choice

Consent is one necessary foundation for ethical research and it’s one of the research ethics committee’s major roles to ensure that the consent process meets acceptable standards. Although on Oxford ‘A’ REC (an NHS Research Ethics Committee based in the UK) we’ve been impressed by the thought and work put into this aspect of research ethics, we’ve continued to have concerns about the suitability and effectiveness of consent processes in supporting decision making, particularly for clinical trials. There’s poor understanding of what people want to help them decide; current processes don’t provide the best grounding for informed consent and there’s inadequate public involvement. We’ve also found a lack of proportionality with researchers failing to adapt consent procedures in proportion to the burdens and consequences of the study. As a result, people are often not best helped to make an informed choice when asked to join a research study. To address these concerns, we considered how we might improve this aspect of research ethics review. Recognising the central importance of the dialogue between the volunteer and researcher, we’ve drawn up a model or flowchart of what we deem good consent practice, proposing consent should be built around four simple steps:

Step 1: Introducing the study and the choices: helping the potential participants get an overview of the proposal and introducing the key issues.

Step 2: Explaining all the details of the study using the detailed Participant Information Sheet.

Step 3: After a gap, if necessary, reviewing and checking understanding.

Step 4: Reaching agreement and recording consent.

These steps, we believe, could help all involved and this article lays out ways we might improve participant choice while complying with accepted principles and current regulations.

Informed consent procedure in a double blind randomized anthelminthic trial on Pemba Island, Tanzania: do pamphlet and information session increase caregivers knowledge?

BACKGROUND

In clinical research, obtaining informed consent from participants is an ethical and legal requirement. Conveying the information concerning the study can be done using multiple methods yet this step commonly relies exclusively on the informed consent form alone. While this is legal, it does not ensure the participant's true comprehension. New effective methods of conveying consent information should be tested. In this study we compared the effect of different methods on the knowledge of caregivers of participants of a clinical trial on Pemba Island, Tanzania.

METHODS

A total of 254 caregivers were assigned to receive (i) a pamphlet (n = 63), (ii) an oral information session (n = 62) or (iii) a pamphlet and an oral information session (n = 64) about the clinical trial procedures, their rights, benefits and potential risks. Their post-intervention knowledge was assessed using a questionnaire. One group of caregivers had not received any information when they were interviewed (n = 65).

RESULTS

In contrast to the pamphlet, attending an information session significantly increased caregivers' knowledge for some of the questions. Most of these questions were either related to the parasite (hookworm) or to the trial design (study procedures).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, within our trial on Pemba Island, a pamphlet was found to not be a good form of conveying clinical trial information while an oral information session improved knowledge. Not all caregivers attending an information session responded correctly to all questions; therefore, better forms of communicating information need to be found to achieve a truly informed consent.

Comprehension of written texts for the assessment of clinical competence and decision making in people with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease

BACKGROUND

Clinical competence is the term used to describe an individual's capacity to express a choice regarding their participation in clinical procedures or experimental studies. Understanding the information provided is a prerequisite but consent forms are often lengthy and complicated. Alzheimer's disease patients may be vulnerable in written comprehension, due to cognitive deficits, but unfortunately to date, a specific evaluation of this ability is not included in periodical assessments.

METHODS

One hundred thirty Italian patients with Alzheimer's disease were compared with 130 controls in a comprehension task involving a simplified informed consent form. Their performance in this task was compared with their performance with two other types of reading material (a testament and a history text). In addition, the performance of a subgroup of very mild patients in this test was compared with their performance in a widely used interview for the assessment of clinical competence (MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research).

RESULTS

Good sensitivity and specificity of the cut-offs identified consent form and the other texts as good instruments for evaluation of written comprehension. The comprehension of consent form may be compromised since the early stages of Alzheimer's disease. Nevertheless, a simplified, written text may help patients in comparison with interviews (MacCAT-CR). Better performance was correlated to the standard of education and better cognitive functions.

CONCLUSION

Deficits regarding the comprehension of written texts and the consent form may be early in Alzheimer's disease patients and need to be investigated during periodical neuropsychological assessment. Comprehension may be facilitated by means of specific simplification strategies.

Do adapted vignettes improve medical decision-making capacity for individuals with Alzheimer's disease?

Medical decision-making capacity (MDC) is known to decline in individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD). The vignette method uses hypothetical information as a prerequisite for measuring the capacity to make well-informed decisions to clinical trials. Our aim was to investigate if adapted vignettes can help individuals with mild AD to assimilate information, make decisions and express them in an understandable way, compared to corresponding decisions based on linguistically more demanding vignettes, as measured by the Swedish Linguistic Instrument for Medical Decision-making (LIMD). Two vignettes from LIMD were altered linguistically with the aim to facilitate understanding for individuals with AD. An experimental within-subject design was used to study the influence on MDC of readability (original/adapted vignettes) and content (two different clinical trials). We included 24 patients with mild AD in this prospective study, which read all four vignettes along with a few other tests. This allowed us to investigate the association between MDC and cognitive function. Adapted vignettes did not yield significant differences regarding MDC as compared with original vignettes using a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance. A difference was found between the two clinical trials where LIMD score was significantly higher for Kidney disease than hypertension vignettes. Our results indicate that adapted vignettes may not improve MDC for individuals with mild AD. MDC was affected by which clinical trial the vignettes regarded, which implies that other factors affecting MDC need to be investigated, like length of text and vocabulary used.

Improved pregnant women's understanding of research information by an enhanced informed consent form: a randomised controlled study nested in neonatal research

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to test the applicability and effectiveness of the enhanced informed consent form (ICF) methodology, proposed by the Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review (SIDCER), in neonatal research requiring maternal consent.

DESIGN

A single-centre open-label randomised controlled study.

SETTING

Antenatal care clinics at Phramongkutklao Hospital, Thailand.

PATIENTS

234 pregnant women who were at risk of preterm labour were enrolled; 232 individuals completed the study.

INTERVENTIONS

The participants were randomly assigned to read either the SIDCER ICF or the conventional ICF.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The participants' understanding of essential trial-related information was assessed using 25 closed-ended questions. The primary endpoint was the proportion of the participants who obtained the satisfactory level of understanding at 80% (score of ≥20/25).

RESULTS

72.5% (87/120) of the participants in the SIDCER ICF group and 59.8% (67/112) of the conventional ICF group achieved the primary endpoint (relative risk (RR)=1.212, 95% CI 1.005 to 1.462, p=0.041). The superiority of the SIDCER ICF over the conventional ICF was significant, particularly among the participants whose education was at the high school level or below (63.5% vs 44.1%, RR=1.441, 95% CI 1.022 to 2.030, p=0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

The SIDCER ICF methodology is applicable to neonatal research requiring maternal consent. The SIDCER ICF significantly improved the understanding of pregnant women, particularly among those with lower levels of education. The present study confirms the value of the SIDCER ICF methodology in research involving individuals with a limited academic background.

Broad consent for health care-embedded biobanking: understanding and reasons to donate in a large patient sample

PurposeTo facilitate ethically acceptable and practically successful health care-embedded biobanking, the attitudes and understanding of patients and their motivation to participate need to be explored.MethodsA questionnaire study was conducted among 760 outpatients of a northern German university hospital to assess their awareness of, and motivation for giving broad consent to health care-embedded biobanking, also addressing the issue of feedback on individual-level research findings.ResultsThe overall willingness to give broad consent was high (86.9%) in our study, even though the subjective and objective understanding of patients was found to be only modest. Most participants who consented did so for prosocial reasons (altruism, solidarity, reciprocity, gratitude), whereas self-interest or worries about disadvantages played only a marginal role. Better objective understanding was associated with both a greater demand for feedback on individual research findings and a higher willingness to consent. Intermittent modification of the information material provided by the hospital led to significantly improved objective understanding.ConclusionPatient willingness to give broad consent to health care-embedded biobanking is high, with prosocial reasons driving decision making more than factual knowledge and approval or disapproval of specific consent elements. Future efforts to improve the information material used in health care-embedded biobanking should therefore emphasize prosocial reasons to consent.

Communicating Risks and Benefits in Informed Consent for Research: A Qualitative Study

Multiple studies have documented major limitations in the informed consent process for the recruitment of clinical research participants. One challenging aspect of this process is successful communication of risks and benefits to potential research participants. This study explored the opinions and attitudes of informed consent experts about conveying risks and benefits to inform the development of a survey about the perspectives of research nurses who are responsible for obtaining informed consent for clinical trials. The major themes identified were strategies for risks and benefits communication, ensuring comprehension, and preparation for the role of the consent administrator. From the experts' perspective, inadequate education and training of the research staff responsible for informed consent process contribute to deficiencies in the informed consent process and risks and benefits communication. Inconsistencies in experts' opinions and critique of certain widely used communication practices require further consideration and additional research.