5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Informed consent: Old and new challenges in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

      discussion

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In this paper, we address how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted informed consent for clinical research through examining experiences within Clinical and Translation Science Award (CTSA) institutions. We begin with a brief overview of informed consent and the challenges that existed prior to COVID-19. Then, we discuss how informed consent processes were modified or changed to address the pandemic, consider what lessons were learned, and present research and policy steps to prepare for future research and public health crises. The experiences and challenges for CTSA institutions offer an important perspective for examining what we have learned about informed consent and determining the next steps for improving the consent process.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review.

          Available data suggest that prospective research participants may frequently not understand information disclosed to them in the informed consent process. Little is known about how understanding can be improved. To review research on interventions to improve research participants' understanding of information disclosed in the informed consent process. A search of MEDLINE was performed using the terms informed consent and clinical research and informed consent and (comprehension or understanding) from 1966 to March 2004 , which included randomized controlled trials, longitudinal trials, and controlled trials with nonrandom allocation that compared the understanding of research participants who had undergone only a standard informed consent process to that of participants who had received an intervention to improve their understanding. A comprehensive bibliography of empirical research on informed consent published in January 1999 was also reviewed, as were personal files and all issues of the journals IRB and Controlled Clinical Trials. Study design, quality criteria, population characteristics, interventions, and outcomes for each trial were extracted. The statistical significance of the interventions' effects on understanding were noted, as were mean scores for understanding for each group of each trial. For those trials that measured the secondary outcomes of satisfaction and willingness to enroll, results were also summarized. Thirty studies described 42 trials that met inclusion criteria. Of 12 trials of multimedia interventions, 3 showed significant improvement in understanding. Of 15 trials of enhanced consent forms, 6 showed significant improvement in understanding (all P<.05), but 5 of 6 trials were of limited quality, casting doubt on their practical relevance. Of 5 trials of extended discussion, 3 showed significant improvement in understanding (all P<.001) and 2 showed trends toward improvement (P=.054 and P=.08). Of 5 trials of test/feedback, all showed significant improvement in understanding (all P<.05) but were flawed in that they may have mistaken rote memorization for improvement in understanding. Another 5 trials were put into a miscellaneous category and had varying impact on understanding. Some demographic factors, particularly lower education, were associated with less understanding. Satisfaction and willingness to enroll were never significantly diminished by an intervention . Efforts to improve understanding through the use of multimedia and enhanced consent forms have had only limited success. Having a study team member or a neutral educator spend more time talking one-on-one to study participants appears to be the most effective available way of improving research participants' understanding; however, further research is needed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Impact of the digital divide in the age of COVID-19

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials

              Background Obtaining informed consent is a cornerstone of biomedical research, yet participants comprehension of presented information is often low. The most effective interventions to improve understanding rates have not been identified. Purpose To systematically analyze the random controlled trials testing interventions to research informed consent process. The primary outcome of interest was quantitative rates of participant understanding; secondary outcomes were rates of information retention, satisfaction, and accrual. Interventional categories included multimedia, enhanced consent documents, extended discussions, test/feedback quizzes, and miscellaneous methods. Methods The search spanned from database inception through September 2010. It was run on Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid CINAHL, Ovid PsycInfo and Cochrane CENTRAL, ISI Web of Science and Scopus. Five reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened full abstract text to determine eligibility. We included only RCTs. 39 out of 1523 articles fulfilled review criteria (2.6%), with a total of 54 interventions. A data extraction form was created in Distiller, an online reference management system, through an iterative process. One author collected data on study design, population, demographics, intervention, and analytical technique. Results Meta-analysis was possible on 22 interventions: multimedia, enhanced form, and extended discussion categories; all 54 interventions were assessed by review. Meta-analysis of multimedia approaches was associated with a non-significant increase in understanding scores (SMD 0.30, 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.84); enhanced consent form, with significant increase (SMD 1.73, 95% CI, 0.99 to 2.47); and extended discussion, with significant increase (SMD 0.53, 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.84). By review, 31% of multimedia interventions showed significant improvement in understanding; 41% for enhanced consent form; 50% for extended discussion; 33% for test/feedback; and 29% for miscellaneous.Multiple sources of variation existed between included studies: control processes, the presence of a human proctor, real vs. simulated protocol, and assessment formats. Conclusions Enhanced consent forms and extended discussions were most effective in improving participant understanding. Interventions of all categories had no negative impact on participant satisfaction or study accrual. Identification of best practices for studies of informed consent interventions would aid future systematic comparisons.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Clin Transl Sci
                J Clin Transl Sci
                CTS
                Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
                Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, UK )
                2059-8661
                2021
                07 April 2021
                : 5
                : 1
                : e105
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Ob/Gyn, School of Medicine, University of Utah , Salt Lake City, UT, USA
                [2 ]Rockefeller University , New York, NY, USA
                [3 ]University of Kentucky Center for Clinical and Translational Science , Lexington, KY, USA
                [4 ]Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, NC Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill, NC, USA
                [5 ]Emory University School of Medicine , Department of Medicine, and Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliancet, Atlanta, GA, USA
                [6 ]Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research , Baltimore, MD, USA
                [7 ]Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children’s Research Institute and Division of Bioethics and Palliative Care, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine , Seattle, WA, USA
                [8 ]Department of Humanities, College of Medicine, Pennsylvania State University, and Penn State Clinical and Translational Science Institute , Hershey, PA, USA
                [9 ]Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children’s Hospital and Research Institute; Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine; Institute of Translational Health Sciences, Seattle, WA, USA
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: E. Rothwell, PhD, Associate Vice President for Research, Professor, Department of Ob/Gyn, School of Medicine, University of Utah , 75 South 2000 East, Salt Lake City, Utah. Email: erin.rothwell@ 123456hsc.utah.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2294-2299
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1381-1852
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2549-2289
                Article
                S2059866121004015
                10.1017/cts.2021.401
                8193198
                34192059
                eb930bbf-28c6-437c-b9d5-b894680d1f84
                © The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2021

                This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 22 December 2020
                : 07 March 2021
                : 18 March 2021
                Page count
                Tables: 2, References: 31, Pages: 5
                Categories
                Special Communications
                Implementation, Policy and Community Engagement
                Re-engineering the Clinical Research Enterprise in Response to COVID-19: The CTSA Experience

                informed consent,covid-19,pandemic,clinical research,ctsa
                informed consent, covid-19, pandemic, clinical research, ctsa

                Comments

                Comment on this article