BACKGROUND: Significant debate surrounds the issue of whether written consent is necessary for pragmatic randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) with low risk. OBJECTIVE: To assess the U.S. public's views on alternatives to written consent for low-risk pragmatic RCTs. DESIGN: National experimental survey (2 × 2 factorial design) examining support for written consent versus general notification or verbal consent in 2 research scenarios. SETTING: Web-based survey conducted in December 2014. PARTICIPANTS: 2130 U.S. adults sampled from a nationally representative, probability-based online panel (response rate, 64.0%). MEASUREMENTS: Respondent's recommendation to an ethics review board and personal preference as a potential participant on how to obtain consent or notification in the 2 research scenarios. RESULTS: Most respondents in each of the 4 groups (range, 60.3% to 71.5%) recommended written informed consent, and personal preferences were generally in accord with that advice. Most (78.9%) believed that the pragmatic RCTs did not pose additional risks, but 62.5% of these respondents would still recommend written consent. In contrast, a substantial minority in all groups (28.5% to 39.7%) recommended the alternative option (general notification or verbal consent) over written consent. LIMITATION: Framing effects could have affected respondents' attitudes, and nonrespondents may have differed in levels of trust toward research or health care institutions. CONCLUSION: Most of the public favored written informed consent over the most widely advocated alternatives for low-risk pragmatic RCTs; however, a substantial minority favored general notification or verbal consent. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences and Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center.
BACKGROUND: Significant debate surrounds the issue of whether written consent is necessary for pragmatic randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) with low risk. OBJECTIVE: To assess the U.S. public's views on alternatives to written consent for low-risk pragmatic RCTs. DESIGN: National experimental survey (2 × 2 factorial design) examining support for written consent versus general notification or verbal consent in 2 research scenarios. SETTING: Web-based survey conducted in December 2014. PARTICIPANTS: 2130 U.S. adults sampled from a nationally representative, probability-based online panel (response rate, 64.0%). MEASUREMENTS: Respondent's recommendation to an ethics review board and personal preference as a potential participant on how to obtain consent or notification in the 2 research scenarios. RESULTS: Most respondents in each of the 4 groups (range, 60.3% to 71.5%) recommended written informed consent, and personal preferences were generally in accord with that advice. Most (78.9%) believed that the pragmatic RCTs did not pose additional risks, but 62.5% of these respondents would still recommend written consent. In contrast, a substantial minority in all groups (28.5% to 39.7%) recommended the alternative option (general notification or verbal consent) over written consent. LIMITATION: Framing effects could have affected respondents' attitudes, and nonrespondents may have differed in levels of trust toward research or health care institutions. CONCLUSION: Most of the public favored written informed consent over the most widely advocated alternatives for low-risk pragmatic RCTs; however, a substantial minority favored general notification or verbal consent. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences and Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center.
Authors: Ruth R Faden; Nancy E Kass; Steven N Goodman; Peter Pronovost; Sean Tunis; Tom L Beauchamp Journal: Hastings Cent Rep Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.683
Authors: Tom Tomlinson; Raymond De Vries; Kerry Ryan; Hyungjin Myra Kim; Nicole Lehpamer; Scott Y H Kim Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Neal W Dickert; David Wendler; Chandan M Devireddy; Sara F Goldkind; Yi-An Ko; Candace D Speight; Scott Y H Kim Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Kevin P Weinfurt; Juli M Bollinger; Kathleen M Brelsford; Martina Bresciani; Zachary Lampron; Li Lin; Rachel J Topazian; Jeremy Sugarman Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Ashley Kraybill; Laura M Dember; Steven Joffe; Jason Karlawish; Susan S Ellenberg; Vanessa Madden; Scott D Halpern Journal: AJOB Empir Bioeth Date: 2015-10-23
Authors: Sandra Soo-Jin Lee; Maureen Kelley; Mildred K Cho; Stephanie Alessi Kraft; Cyan James; Melissa Constantine; Adrienne N Meyer; Douglas Diekema; Alexander M Capron; Benjamin S Wilfond; David Magnus Journal: AJOB Empir Bioeth Date: 2016-03-02
Authors: Neal W Dickert; David Wendler; Chandan M Devireddy; Sara F Goldkind; Yi-An Ko; Candace D Speight; Scott Yh Kim Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Stephanie Alessi Kraft; Mildred K Cho; Melissa Constantine; Sandra Soo-Jin Lee; Maureen Kelley; Diane Korngiebel; Cyan James; Ellen Kuwana; Adrienne Meyer; Kathryn Porter; Douglas Diekema; Alexander M Capron; Radica Alicic; Benjamin S Wilfond; David Magnus Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 2.486
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