Literature DB >> 23757370

An investigation of the efficacy of electronic consenting interfaces of research permissions management system in a hospital setting.

Kapil Chalil Madathil1, Reshmi Koikkara, Jihad Obeid, Joel S Greenstein, Iain C Sanderson, Katrina Fryar, Jay Moskowitz, Anand K Gramopadhye.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Ethical and legal requirements for healthcare providers in the United States, stipulate that patients sign a consent form prior to undergoing medical treatment or participating in a research study. Currently, the majority of the hospitals obtain these consents using paper-based forms, which makes patient preference data cumbersome to store, search and retrieve. To address these issues, Health Sciences of South Carolina (HSSC), a collaborative of academic medical institutions and research universities in South Carolina, is developing an electronic consenting system, the Research Permissions Management System (RPMS). This article reports the findings of a study conducted to investigate the efficacy of the two proposed interfaces for this system - an iPad-based and touchscreen-based by comparing them to the paper-based and Topaz-based systems currently in use.
METHODS: This study involved 50 participants: 10 hospital admission staff and 40 patients. The four systems were compared with respect to the time taken to complete the consenting process, the number of errors made by the patients, the workload experienced by the hospital staff and the subjective ratings of both patients and staff on post-test questionnaires.
RESULTS: The results from the empirical study indicated no significant differences in the time taken to complete the tasks. More importantly, the participants found the new systems more usable than the conventional methods with the registration staff experiencing the least workload in the iPad and touchscreen-based conditions and the patients experiencing more privacy and control during the consenting process with the proposed electronic systems. In addition, they indicated better comprehension and awareness of what they were signing using the new interfaces. DISCUSSION: The results indicate the two methods proposed for capturing patient consents are at least as effective as the conventional methods, and superior in several important respects. While more research is needed, these findings suggest the viability of cautious adoption of electronic consenting systems, especially because these new systems appear to address the challenge of identifying the participants required for the complex research being conducted as the result of advances in the biomedical sciences.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Data collection; Electronic consenting systems; Informatics; Informed consent; Mobile devices; Registration staff; iPad

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23757370      PMCID: PMC3779682          DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.04.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Med Inform        ISSN: 1386-5056            Impact factor:   4.046


  16 in total

1.  Beyond the five-user assumption: benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing.

Authors:  Laura Faulkner
Journal:  Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput       Date:  2003-08

2.  Informed consent or acknowledgment of disclosure.

Authors:  Marcus M Reidenberg
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 6.875

3.  An e-consent-based shared EHR system architecture for integrated healthcare networks.

Authors:  Joachim Bergmann; Oliver J Bott; Dietrich P Pretschner; Reinhold Haux
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2006-09-12       Impact factor: 4.046

Review 4.  From genetic privacy to open consent.

Authors:  Jeantine E Lunshof; Ruth Chadwick; Daniel B Vorhaus; George M Church
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 53.242

5.  Informed consent: how much does the patient understand?

Authors:  J H Bergler; A C Pennington; M Metcalfe; E D Freis
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1980-04       Impact factor: 6.875

6.  Influence of the HIPAA Privacy Rule on health research.

Authors:  Roberta B Ness
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-11-14       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  The nature and occurrence of registration errors in the emergency department.

Authors:  A Forogh Hakimzada; Robert A Green; Osman R Sayan; Jiajie Zhang; Vimla L Patel
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2007-06-07       Impact factor: 4.046

8.  Managing clinical research permissions electronically: A novel approach to enhancing recruitment and managing consents.

Authors:  Iain C Sanderson; Jihad S Obeid; Kapil Chalil Madathil; Katherine Gerken; Katrina Fryar; Daniel Rugg; Colin E Alstad; Randall Alexander; Kathleen T Brady; Anand K Gramopadhye; Jay Moskowitz
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 2.486

9.  Repeated assessments of informed consent comprehension among HIV-infected participants of a three-year clinical trial in Botswana.

Authors:  Lelia H Chaisson; Nancy E Kass; Bafanana Chengeta; Unami Mathebula; Taraz Samandari
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Development of an electronic research permissions management system to enhance informed consents and capture research authorizations data.

Authors:  Jihad S Obeid; Katherine Gerken; Kapil Chalil Madathil; Daniel Rugg; Colin E Alstad; Katrina Fryar; Randall Alexander; Anand K Gramopadhye; Jay Moskowitz; Iain C Sanderson
Journal:  AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc       Date:  2013-03-18
View more
  20 in total

1.  Current State of Electronic Consent Processes in Behavioral Health: Outcomes from an Observational Study.

Authors:  Hiral Soni; Adela Grando; Anita Murcko; Mike Bayuk; Pramod Chandrashekar; Madhumita Mukundan; Meredith Abrams; Marcela P Aliste; Megan Hiestand; Julia Varkey; Wentao Zhou; Caroline Horrow; Michael Saks; Richard Sharp; Mary Jo Whitfield; Mark Callesen; Christy Dye; Darwyn Chern
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2018-04-16

2.  Smart Technology in Lung Disease Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Nancy L Geller; Dong-Yun Kim; Xin Tian
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 9.410

3.  Evaluation of a REDCap-based Workflow for Supporting Federal Guidance for Electronic Informed Consent.

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

4.  Development and Pilot of a REDCap Electronic Informed Consent Form for Research: An Example from the ROPE Study.

Authors:  Jesse M Weiss; Heather A Davis; Ann Marie McCarthy; Mark K Santillan; Debra S Brandt; Donna A Santillan
Journal:  J Inform Nurs       Date:  2021

5.  Tablet computers for hospitalized patients: a pilot study to improve inpatient engagement.

Authors:  S Ryan Greysen; Raman R Khanna; Ronald Jacolbia; Herman M Lee; Andrew D Auerbach
Journal:  J Hosp Med       Date:  2014-02-13       Impact factor: 2.960

6.  Obtaining patient feedback in an outpatient lithotripsy service is facilitated by use of a touch-screen tablet (iPad™) survey.

Authors:  B W Turney; J M Reynard
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-04-19       Impact factor: 3.436

7.  Informed Consent: Does Anyone Really Understand What Is Contained In The Medical Record?

Authors:  S H Fenton; F Manion; K Hsieh; M Harris
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2015-07-22       Impact factor: 2.342

Review 8.  Pragmatic Clinical Trials in CKD: Opportunities and Challenges.

Authors:  Ian H de Boer; Csaba P Kovesdy; Sankar D Navaneethan; Carmen A Peralta; Delphine S Tuot; Miguel A Vazquez; Deidra C Crews
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 10.121

9.  Lessons Learned for Identifying and Annotating Permissions in Clinical Consent Forms.

Authors:  Elizabeth E Umberfield; Yun Jiang; Susan H Fenton; Cooper Stansbury; Kathleen Ford; Kaycee Crist; Sharon L R Kardia; Andrea K Thomer; Marcelline R Harris
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2021-06-23       Impact factor: 2.762

10.  Interactive multimedia consent for biobanking: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Christian M Simon; David W Klein; Helen A Schartz
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.