OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the adequacy of paediatric informed consent and its augmentation by a supplemental computer-based module in paediatric endoscopy. METHODS: The Consent-20 instrument was developed and piloted on 47 subjects. Subsequently, parents of 101 children undergoing first-time, diagnostic upper endoscopy performed under moderate IV sedation were prospectively and consecutively, blinded, randomised and enrolled into two groups that received either standard form-based informed consent or standard form-based informed consent plus a commercial (Emmi Solutions, Inc, Chicago, Il), sixth grade level, interactive learning module (electronic assisted consent). Anonymously and electronically, the subjects' anxiety (State Trait Anxiety Inventory), satisfaction (Modified Group Health Association of America), number of questions asked, and attainment of informed consent were assessed (Consent-20). Statistics were calculated using t test, paired t test, and Mann Whitney tests. RESULTS: The ability to achieve informed consent, as measured by the new instrument, was 10% in the control form-based consent group and 33% in the electronic assisted consent group (p<0.0001). Electronically assisting form-based informed consent did not alter secondary outcome measures of subject satisfaction, anxiety or number of questions asked in a paediatric endoscopy unit. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the limitations of form-based informed consent methods for paediatric endoscopy. It also shows that even when necessary information was repeated electronically in a comprehensive and standardised video, informed consent as measured by our instrument was incompletely achieved. The supplemental information did, however, significantly improve understanding in a manner that did not negatively impact workflow, subject anxiety or subject satisfaction. Additional study of informed consent is required.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the adequacy of paediatric informed consent and its augmentation by a supplemental computer-based module in paediatric endoscopy. METHODS: The Consent-20 instrument was developed and piloted on 47 subjects. Subsequently, parents of 101 children undergoing first-time, diagnostic upper endoscopy performed under moderate IV sedation were prospectively and consecutively, blinded, randomised and enrolled into two groups that received either standard form-based informed consent or standard form-based informed consent plus a commercial (Emmi Solutions, Inc, Chicago, Il), sixth grade level, interactive learning module (electronic assisted consent). Anonymously and electronically, the subjects' anxiety (State Trait Anxiety Inventory), satisfaction (Modified Group Health Association of America), number of questions asked, and attainment of informed consent were assessed (Consent-20). Statistics were calculated using t test, paired t test, and Mann Whitney tests. RESULTS: The ability to achieve informed consent, as measured by the new instrument, was 10% in the control form-based consent group and 33% in the electronic assisted consent group (p<0.0001). Electronically assisting form-based informed consent did not alter secondary outcome measures of subject satisfaction, anxiety or number of questions asked in a paediatric endoscopy unit. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the limitations of form-based informed consent methods for paediatric endoscopy. It also shows that even when necessary information was repeated electronically in a comprehensive and standardised video, informed consent as measured by our instrument was incompletely achieved. The supplemental information did, however, significantly improve understanding in a manner that did not negatively impact workflow, subject anxiety or subject satisfaction. Additional study of informed consent is required.
Authors: Cindy Chen; Scott P Turner; Evan T Sholle; Scott W Brown; Vanessa L I Blau; Julianna P Brouwer; Alicia N Lewis; Curtis L Cole; David M Nanus; Manish A Shah; John P Leonard; Thomas R Campion Journal: AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc Date: 2019-05-06
Authors: Jacqueline Martin-Kerry; Peter Bower; Bridget Young; Jonathan Graffy; Rebecca Sheridan; Ian Watt; Paul Baines; Catherine Stones; Jennifer Preston; Steven Higgins; Carrol Gamble; Peter Knapp Journal: Trials Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Fuad Abujarad; Peter Peduzzi; Sophia Mun; Kristina Carlson; Chelsea Edwards; James Dziura; Cynthia Brandt; Sandra Alfano; Geoffrey Chupp Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2021-10-19
Authors: Liam J Convie; Joshua M Clements; Scott McCain; Jeffrey Campbell; Stephen J Kirk; Mike Clarke Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 2.834
Authors: Jennifer Dahne; Rachel L Tomko; Erin A McClure; Jihad S Obeid; Matthew J Carpenter Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-12-12 Impact factor: 4.244