Legal authorized representative experience with smartphone-based electronic informed consent in an acute stroke trial

Comparative Effectiveness of eConsent: Systematic Review

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.

Participant comprehension and perspectives regarding the convenience, security, and satisfaction with teleconsent compared to in-person consent: A parallel-group pilot study among Danish citizens

Background

Teleconsent via video conferencing enables decentralized trials with remote consent and has the additional benefit of allowing a real-time reaction to potential misunderstandings. However, participant acceptance of and satisfaction with teleconsent versus in-person consent processes are unknown.

Methods

We conducted a parallel-group pilot study to evaluate participant comprehension and perspectives regarding the convenience, security, and satisfaction with teleconsent compared to in-person consent among Danish citizens for a hypothetical research study.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in perceptions of security or satisfaction between teleconsent and in-person consent arms. However, participants viewed teleconsent as more convenient than in-person consent, as no transportation was needed and the process was less time-consuming. Recruitment was also faster in the teleconsent arm, and more people dropped out of the in-person arm, citing difficulties with transportation and time.

Conclusion

Decentralized clinical trials have been demonstrated to increase recruitment and enrollment rates, improve trial efficiency, and decrease dropout rates and trial delays. We add to this literature by suggesting that patients perceive teleconsent as similar to in-person consent, suggesting this is a feasible and acceptable substitution for in-person consent in multisite, decentralized trials. Future work should include patient perspectives from a larger, more diverse group of participants.

E-Consent-a guide to maintain recruitment in clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed daunting challenges when conducting clinical research. Adopting new technologies such as remote electronic consent (e-Consent) can help overcome them. However, guidelines for e-Consent implementation in ongoing clinical trials are currently lacking. The NeuroSAFE PROOF trial is a randomized clinical trial evaluating the role of frozen section analysis during RARP for prostate cancer. In response to the COVID-19 crisis, recruitment was halted, and a remote e-Consent solution was designed. The aim of this paper is to describe the process of implementation, impact on recruitment rate, and patients' experience using e-Consent.

METHODS

A substantial amendment of the protocol granted the creation of a remote e-Consent framework based on the REDCap environment, following the structure and content of the already approved paper consent form. Although e-Consent obviated the need for in-person meeting, there was nonetheless counselling sessions performed interactively online. This new pathway offered continuous support to patients through remote consultations. The whole process was judged to be compliant with regulatory requirements before implementation.

RESULTS

Before the first recruitment suspension, NeuroSAFE PROOF was recruiting an average of 9 patients per month. After e-Consent implementation, 63 new patients (4/month) have been enrolled despite a second lockdown, none of whom would have been recruited using the old methods given restrictions on face-to-face consultations. Patients have given positive feedback on the use of the platform. Limited troubleshooting has been required after implementation.

CONCLUSION

Remote e-Consent-based recruitment was critical for the continuation of the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial during the COVID-19 pandemic. The described pathway complies with ethical and regulatory guidelines for informed consent, while minimizing face-to-face interactions that increase the risk of COVID-19 transmission. This guide will help researchers integrate e-Consent to ongoing or planned clinical trials while uncertainty about the course of the pandemic continues.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NeuroSAFE PROOF trial NCT03317990 . Registered on 23 October 2017. Regional Ethics Committee reference 17/LO/1978.

Electronic consenting for conducting research remotely: A review of current practice and key recommendations for using e-consenting

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.

Informed consent procedures for emergency interventional research in patients with traumatic brain injury and ischaemic stroke

Health-care professionals and researchers have a legal and ethical responsibility to inform patients before carrying out diagnostic tests or treatment interventions as part of a clinical study. Interventional research in emergency situations can involve patients with some degree of acute cognitive impairment, as is regularly the case in traumatic brain injury and ischaemic stroke. These patients or their proxies are often unable to provide informed consent within narrow therapeutic time windows. International regulations and national laws are criticised for being inconclusive or restrictive in providing solutions. Currently accepted consent alternatives are deferred consent, exception from consent, or waiver of consent. However, these alternatives appear under-utilised despite being ethically permissible, socially acceptable, and regulatorily compliant. We anticipate that, when the requirements for medical urgency are properly balanced with legal and ethical conduct, the increased use of these alternatives has the potential to improve the efficiency and quality of future emergency interventional studies in patients with an inability to provide informed consent.

Implementation of Electronic Informed Consent in Biomedical Research and Stakeholders' Perspectives: Systematic Review

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

A rationale and framework for seeking remote electronic or phone consent approval in endovascular stroke trials - special relevance in the COVID-19 environment and beyond

Background

Enrollment in time-sensitive endovascular stroke trials can be challenging because of an inability to consent a debilitated patient. Often the legally authorized representative is not on site. Remote consent procedures in the US are inconsistent with the majority of sites shunning these approaches. The current pandemic with visitor restrictions highlights the need for enhancing these options.

Methods

Remote electronic and phone consent procedures specifically for endovascular stroke trials from two comprehensive stroke centers (CSC) are presented. An overview of the genesis of informed consent procedures in the US is also included.

Results

The two CSCs identified as Institution-1 and Institution-2 are large tertiary systems. Institution-1 is a non-profit university-affiliated academic medical center in rural geography. Institution-2 is an HCA hospital in an urban environment. Both serve patients through a spoke-and-hub network, have participated in multiple randomized endovascular stroke trials, and have successfully used these remote options for enrollment. A tiered approach is employed at both institutions with an emphasis on obtaining informed consent in person and resorting to alternatives methods when efforts to that are unsuccessful. A rationale for electronic and phone consent is included, followed by step-by-step illustration of the process at each institution.

Conclusion

Two examples of remote electronic or phone consent procedures from institutions in different geographic environments and organization structures demonstrate that these options can be successfully used for enrollment in stroke trials. The current pandemic highlights the need to enhance these approaches while maintaining appropriate adherence to ethical and legal frameworks.