Literature DB >> 25857675

Elements of informed consent and decision quality were poorly correlated in informed consent documents.

Jamie C Brehaut1, Kelly Carroll2, Glyn Elwyn3, Raphael Saginur4, Jonathan Kimmelman5, Kaveh Shojania6, Ania Syrowatka7, Trang Nguyen8, Dean Fergusson2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Although informed consent (IC) documents must contain specific elements, inclusion of these elements may be insufficient to encourage high-quality decision making. We assessed the extent to which documents conform to IC standards and how well conformity to decision quality (DQ) standards can be predicted by IC standards, IC document characteristics, and study characteristics. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: We obtained 139 IC documents for trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov from study investigators. Using a four-point scale, two raters independently assessed each IC document on 36 IC standard items and 9 DQ items.
RESULTS: Overall agreement between raters across all 45 items was 93%. Across the 36 IC standards items, conformity was generally quite high but variable, with 20 items showing conformity of 80% or more and seven items showing conformity of 50% or lower. IC standards concordance, overall length of the IC document, and country of study were all significant predictors of DQ standards but together accounted for less than 20% of the variance in DQ standards.
CONCLUSION: Conformity to recommendations for improving IC documents was relatively high but variable. The extent to which an IC document conformed to these recommendations was only moderately related to whether it conformed to recommendations for improving DQ. Existing IC regulations may not describe the optimal approach to helping people make good study participation decisions.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical trials; Decision quality; Decision support; Informed consent; Research participants; Trial participation

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25857675     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.03.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  6 in total

1.  Evaluating the Perceptions of Teleconsent in Urban and Rural Communities.

Authors:  Saif Khairat; Katie Tirtanadi; Paige Ottmar; Betsy Sleath; Jihad Obeid
Journal:  Eur J Biomed Inform (Praha)       Date:  2019-07-05

2.  Consent for participating in clinical trials - Is it really informed?

Authors:  Teodora Alexa-Stratulat; Marius Neagu; Anca-Iulia Neagu; Ioana Dana Alexa; Beatrice Gabriela Ioan
Journal:  Dev World Bioeth       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 2.294

3.  "Tell me what you suggest, and let's do that, doctor": Patient deliberation time during informal decision-making in clinical trials.

Authors:  Haruka Nakada; Sachie Yoshida; Kaori Muto
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Details of risk-benefit communication in informed consent documents for phase I/II trials.

Authors:  Hannes Kahrass; Sabine Bossert; Christopher Schürmann; Daniel Strech
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2020-11-24       Impact factor: 2.486

5.  Using behavioral theory and shared decision-making to understand clinical trial recruitment: interviews with trial recruiters.

Authors:  Jamie C Brehaut; Carolina Lavin Venegas; Natasha Hudek; Justin Presseau; Kelly Carroll; Marc Rodger
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 2.279

6.  Developing model biobanking consent language: what matters to prospective participants?

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Catherine M Hammack-Aviran; Kathleen M Brelsford
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 4.615

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.