Louisa Wall1, Zachary Luke Farmer2, Margaret White Webb3, Margie D Dixon1, Ajay Nooka1, Rebecca D Pentz4. 1. Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2. Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA. 3. Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA. 4. Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA rpentz@emory.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND OR AIMS: All agree that informed consent is a process, but past research has focused content analyses on post-consent or on one conversation in the consent series. Our aim was to identify and describe the content of different types of consent conversations. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of 38 adult oncology phase 1 consent conversations, which were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded, and qualitatively analyzed for type and content. RESULTS: Four types of consent conversations were identified: (1) priming, (2) patient-centered options, (3) trial centered, and (4) decision made. The analysis provided a robust description of the content discussed in each type of conversation. Two themes, supportive care and prognosis, were rarely mentioned. Four themes clustered in the patient-centered (type 2) conversations: affirmation of honesty, comfort, progression, and offer of supportive care. CONCLUSION: We identified and described four types of consent conversations. Our novel findings include (1) four different types of conversations with one (priming) not mentioned before and (2) a change of focus from describing the content of one phase 1 consent conversation to describing the content of different types. These in-depth descriptions provide the foundation for future research to determine whether the four types of conversations occur in sequence, thus describing the structure of the consent process and providing the basis for coaching interventions to alert physicians to the appropriate content for each type of conversation. A switch from a focus on one conversation to the types of conversations in the process may better align the consent conversations with the iterative process of shared decision making.
BACKGROUND OR AIMS: All agree that informed consent is a process, but past research has focused content analyses on post-consent or on one conversation in the consent series. Our aim was to identify and describe the content of different types of consent conversations. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of 38 adult oncology phase 1 consent conversations, which were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded, and qualitatively analyzed for type and content. RESULTS: Four types of consent conversations were identified: (1) priming, (2) patient-centered options, (3) trial centered, and (4) decision made. The analysis provided a robust description of the content discussed in each type of conversation. Two themes, supportive care and prognosis, were rarely mentioned. Four themes clustered in the patient-centered (type 2) conversations: affirmation of honesty, comfort, progression, and offer of supportive care. CONCLUSION: We identified and described four types of consent conversations. Our novel findings include (1) four different types of conversations with one (priming) not mentioned before and (2) a change of focus from describing the content of one phase 1 consent conversation to describing the content of different types. These in-depth descriptions provide the foundation for future research to determine whether the four types of conversations occur in sequence, thus describing the structure of the consent process and providing the basis for coaching interventions to alert physicians to the appropriate content for each type of conversation. A switch from a focus on one conversation to the types of conversations in the process may better align the consent conversations with the iterative process of shared decision making.
Authors: Lynn A Jansen; Paul S Appelbaum; William M P Klein; Neil D Weinstein; William Cook; Jessica S Fogel; Daniel P Sulmasy Journal: IRB Date: 2011 Jan-Feb
Authors: Rebecca D Pentz; R Donald Harvey; Margaret White; Zachary Luke Farmer; Olga Dashevskaya; Zhengjia Chen; Colleen Lewis; Taofeek K Owonikoko; Fadlo R Khuri Journal: IRB Date: 2012 Mar-Apr
Authors: Eric Kodish; Michelle Eder; Robert B Noll; Kathleen Ruccione; Beverly Lange; Anne Angiolillo; Rebecca Pentz; Stephen Zyzanski; Laura A Siminoff; Dennis Drotar Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-01-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thomas J Smith; Sarah Temin; Erin R Alesi; Amy P Abernethy; Tracy A Balboni; Ethan M Basch; Betty R Ferrell; Matt Loscalzo; Diane E Meier; Judith A Paice; Jeffrey M Peppercorn; Mark Somerfield; Ellen Stovall; Jamie H Von Roenn Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ana P M Pinheiro; Rachel H Pocock; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Margie D Dixon; Walid L Shaib; Suresh S Ramalingam; Rebecca D Pentz Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sarah B Garrett; Christopher J Koenig; Laura Trupin; Fay J Hlubocky; Christopher K Daugherty; Anne Reinert; Pamela Munster; Daniel Dohan Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sarah B Garrett; Thea M Matthews; Corey M Abramson; Christopher J Koenig; Fay J Hlubocky; Christopher K Daugherty; Pamela N Munster; Daniel Dohan Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2019-10-11
Authors: Fay J Hlubocky; Nancy E Kass; Debra Roter; Susan Larson; Kristen E Wroblewski; Jeremy Sugarman; Christopher K Daugherty Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Rachel S Hianik; Gavin P Campbell; Eli Abernethy; Colleen Lewis; Christina S Wu; Mehmet Akce; Margie D Dixon; Walid L Shaib; Rebecca D Pentz Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2020-05-19
Authors: Mary Murphy; Eilís McCaughan; Matthew A Carson; Monica Donovan; Richard H Wilson; Donna Fitzsimons Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 3.234