Literature DB >> 24273095

A rural community's involvement in the design and usability testing of a computer-based informed consent process for the Personalized Medicine Research Project.

Andrea N Mahnke1, Joseph M Plasek, David G Hoffman, Nathan S Partridge, Wendy S Foth, Carol J Waudby, Luke V Rasmussen, Valerie D McManus, Catherine A McCarty.   

Abstract

Many informed consent studies demonstrate that research subjects poorly retain and understand information in written consent documents. Previous research in multimedia consent is mixed in terms of success for improving participants' understanding, satisfaction, and retention. This failure may be due to a lack of a community-centered design approach to building the interventions. The goal of this study was to gather information from the community to determine the best way to undertake the consent process. Community perceptions regarding different computer-based consenting approaches were evaluated, and a computer-based consent was developed and tested. A second goal was to evaluate whether participants make truly informed decisions to participate in research. Simulations of an informed consent process were videotaped to document the process. Focus groups were conducted to determine community attitudes towards a computer-based informed consent process. Hybrid focus groups were conducted to determine the most acceptable hardware device. Usability testing was conducted on a computer-based consent prototype using a touch-screen kiosk. Based on feedback, a computer-based consent was developed. Representative study participants were able to easily complete the consent, and all were able to correctly answer the comprehension check questions. Community involvement in developing a computer-based consent proved valuable for a population-based genetic study. These findings may translate to other types of informed consents, including those for trials involving treatment of genetic disorders. A computer-based consent may serve to better communicate consistent, clear, accurate, and complete information regarding the risks and benefits of study participation. Additional analysis is necessary to measure the level of comprehension of the check-question answers by larger numbers of participants. The next step will involve contacting participants to measure whether understanding of what they consented to is retained over time.
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  computer-based informed consent; decision making; focus groups; genetic research; usability

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24273095      PMCID: PMC4145717          DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.36220

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet A        ISSN: 1552-4825            Impact factor:   2.802


  15 in total

1.  Understanding of genetics among older adults.

Authors:  Lorraine Frazier; Amy O Calvin; Gia T Mudd; Marlene Z Cohen
Journal:  J Nurs Scholarsh       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.176

2.  Informed versus uninformed consent for prostate surgery: the value of electronic consents.

Authors:  Muta M Issa; Erin Setzer; Christine Charaf; Alexandra L B Webb; Rachel Derico; I Jane Kimberl; Aaron S Fink
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  'Even if they ask you to stand by a tree all day, you will have to do it (laughter)...!': community voices on the notion and practice of informed consent for biomedical research in developing countries.

Authors:  C S Molyneux; D R Wassenaar; N Peshu; K Marsh
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  Informed consent and subject motivation to participate in a large, population-based genomics study: the Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project.

Authors:  Catherine A McCarty; Anuradha Nair; Diane M Austin; Philip F Giampietro
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2007

5.  Using computer agents to explain medical documents to patients with low health literacy.

Authors:  Timothy W Bickmore; Laura M Pfeifer; Michael K Paasche-Orlow
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2009-03-17

Review 6.  Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents.

Authors:  Michael Jefford; Rosemary Moore
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 41.316

7.  The effect of format modifications and reading comprehension on recall of informed consent information by low-income parents: a comparison of print, video, and computer-based presentations.

Authors:  Frances A Campbell; Barbara D Goldman; Maria L Boccia; Martie Skinner
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2004-05

8.  Community consultation and communication for a population-based DNA biobank: the Marshfield clinic personalized medicine research project.

Authors:  Catherine A McCarty; Donna Chapman-Stone; Teresa Derfus; Philip F Giampietro; Norman Fost
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 2.802

9.  Experiences with community engagement and informed consent in a genetic cohort study of severe childhood diseases in Kenya.

Authors:  Vicki M Marsh; Dorcas M Kamuya; Albert M Mlamba; Thomas N Williams; Sassy S Molyneux
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2010-07-15       Impact factor: 2.652

10.  Developing a simplified consent form for biobanking.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Joëlle Y Friedman; N Chantelle Hardy; Li Lin; Kevin P Weinfurt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-10-08       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  5 in total

1.  Improving informed consent: Stakeholder views.

Authors:  Emily E Anderson; Susan B Newman; Alicia K Matthews
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2017-08-02

2.  Moving Forward on Consent Practices in Australia.

Authors:  Rebekah E McWhirter; Lisa Eckstein
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 1.352

3.  Facilitating Informed Permission/Assent/Consent in Pediatric Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Susan M Abdel-Rahman
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 3.022

4.  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

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

Authors:  Evelien De Sutter; Drieda Zaçe; Stefania Boccia; Maria Luisa Di Pietro; David Geerts; Pascal Borry; Isabelle Huys
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 5.428

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.