Sudipto Chatterjee1, Berit Kieselbach2, Smita Naik3, Shuba Kumar4, Sujit John5, Madhumitha Balaji6, Mirja Koschorke7, Hamid Dabholkar8, Mathew Varghese9, Vikram Patel10,11,12,13, Graham Thornicroft14,15, Rangaswamy Thara16. 1. Sangath, Goa, India. sudipto_dr@yahoo.com.au. 2. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. beritkieselbach@gmail.com. 3. Sangath, Goa, India. smitan@sangath.com. 4. Samarth, Chennai, India. shubakumar@samarthngo.org. 5. Schizophrenia Research Foundation, Chennai, India. Sujitjohn@scarfindia.org. 6. Sangath, Goa, India. madhs@hotmail.com. 7. Institute of Psychiatry, Kings' College, London, UK. mirja.koschorke@kcl.ac.uk. 8. Parivartan, Satara, India. hamid.dabholkar@gmail.com. 9. National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, India. mat.varg@yahoo.com. 10. Sangath, Goa, India. vikram.patel@lshtm.ac.uk. 11. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. vikram.patel@lshtm.ac.uk. 12. Centre for Global Mental Health, London, UK. vikram.patel@lshtm.ac.uk. 13. Centre for Mental Health, Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India. vikram.patel@lshtm.ac.uk. 14. Institute of Psychiatry, Kings' College, London, UK. graham.thornicroft@kcl.ac.uk. 15. Centre for Global Mental Health, London, UK. graham.thornicroft@kcl.ac.uk. 16. Schizophrenia Research Foundation, Chennai, India. thara@scarfindia.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little information on how the ethical and procedural challenges involved in the informed participation of people with schizophrenia in clinical trials are addressed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The informed consent procedure used in the collaborative community care for people with schizophrenia in India (COPSI) RCT was developed keeping these challenges in mind. We describe the feasibility of conducting the procedure from the trial, researcher and participants perspectives and describe the reasons for people consenting to participate in the trial or refusing to do so. METHODS: Three sources of information were used to describe the feasibility of the COPSI consent procedure: key process indicators for the trial perspective, data from a specially designed post-interview form for participant's observations and focus group discussion (FGD) with the research interviewers. Categorical data were analysed by calculating frequencies and proportions, while the qualitative data from the FGD, and the reasons for participation or refusal were analysed using a thematic content analysis approach. FINDINGS: 434 people with schizophrenia and their primary caregiver(s) were approached for participation in the trial. Consent interviews were conducted with 332, of whom 303 (91%) agreed to participate in the trial. Expectation of improvement was the most common reason for agreeing to participate in the trial, while concerns related to the potential disclosure of the illness, especially for women, were an important reason for refusing consent. CONCLUSIONS: The COPSI consent procedure demonstrates preliminary, observational information about the feasibility of customising informed consent procedures for people with schizophrenia LMIC contexts. This and other similar innovations need to be refined and rigorously tested to develop evidence-based guidelines for informed consent procedures in such settings.
BACKGROUND: There is little information on how the ethical and procedural challenges involved in the informed participation of people with schizophrenia in clinical trials are addressed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The informed consent procedure used in the collaborative community care for people with schizophrenia in India (COPSI) RCT was developed keeping these challenges in mind. We describe the feasibility of conducting the procedure from the trial, researcher and participants perspectives and describe the reasons for people consenting to participate in the trial or refusing to do so. METHODS: Three sources of information were used to describe the feasibility of the COPSI consent procedure: key process indicators for the trial perspective, data from a specially designed post-interview form for participant's observations and focus group discussion (FGD) with the research interviewers. Categorical data were analysed by calculating frequencies and proportions, while the qualitative data from the FGD, and the reasons for participation or refusal were analysed using a thematic content analysis approach. FINDINGS: 434 people with schizophrenia and their primary caregiver(s) were approached for participation in the trial. Consent interviews were conducted with 332, of whom 303 (91%) agreed to participate in the trial. Expectation of improvement was the most common reason for agreeing to participate in the trial, while concerns related to the potential disclosure of the illness, especially for women, were an important reason for refusing consent. CONCLUSIONS: The COPSI consent procedure demonstrates preliminary, observational information about the feasibility of customising informed consent procedures for people with schizophrenia LMIC contexts. This and other similar innovations need to be refined and rigorously tested to develop evidence-based guidelines for informed consent procedures in such settings.
Authors: S Bhansali; N Shafiq; S Malhotra; P Pandhi; Inderjeet Singh; S P Venkateshan; S Siddhu; Y P Sharma; K K Talwar Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2009-03-31 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Sangeetha Paramasivan; Philippa Davies; Alison Richards; Julia Wade; Leila Rooshenas; Nicola Mills; Alba Realpe; Jeffrey Pradeep Raj; Supriya Subramani; Jonathan Ives; Richard Huxtable; Jane M Blazeby; Jenny L Donovan Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2021-05
Authors: Megan M Campbell; Ezra Susser; Sumaya Mall; Sibonile G Mqulwana; Michael M Mndini; Odwa A Ntola; Mohamed Nagdee; Zukiswa Zingela; Stephanus Van Wyk; Dan J Stein Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Megan M Campbell; Jantina de Vries; Sibonile G Mqulwana; Michael M Mndini; Odwa A Ntola; Deborah Jonker; Megan Malan; Adele Pretorius; Zukiswa Zingela; Stephanus Van Wyk; Dan J Stein; Ezra Susser Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2018-07-11 Impact factor: 2.652