Tamar Krishnamurti1, Nichole Argo1,2. 1. Departments of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania(TK, NA) 2. Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania(NA)
Abstract
PURPOSE: Traditional informed consent documents tend to be too lengthy and technical to facilitate proper patient engagement. Patient-centered, short informed consent content could be equally informative, while minimizing patient burden and producing greater patient engagement. This study aimed to develop and evaluate patient-centered, patient-designed paper and video informed consent formats. METHODS: Two studies were conducted. In study 1, 118 self-identifying asthma patients recruited from a national, online pool completed survey tasks from their personal computers. Participants in study 1 were randomly assigned to examine sections of a standard informed consent document for an asthma trial and to select information they deemed critical to their decision making. In study 2, a sample of 83 self-identifying asthma patients completed experimental tasks in a university laboratory. Participants in study 2 were randomly assigned to a full informed consent document; a shortened, patient-designed informed consent document created from study 1; or a video with content matched to the shortened paper form. RESULTS: Study 1 yielded a more readable, concise version of a standard informed consent document (5 v. 17 pages). This shortened, patient-designed form closely met normative criteria for good clinical practice. In study 2, participants who viewed either the shortened paper consent or video reported greater engagement than those viewing the standard paper consent, without lowered performance on any other decision-relevant variables (i.e., comprehension, judged risk/benefit, feelings of trust). The video consent format did not cause increased enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that providing concise informed consent content, systematically developed from patients' self-reported information needs, may be more effective at engaging and informing clinical trial participants than the traditional consent approach, without detriment to trial comprehension, risk assessment, or enrollment.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Traditional informed consent documents tend to be too lengthy and technical to facilitate proper patient engagement. Patient-centered, short informed consent content could be equally informative, while minimizing patient burden and producing greater patient engagement. This study aimed to develop and evaluate patient-centered, patient-designed paper and video informed consent formats. METHODS: Two studies were conducted. In study 1, 118 self-identifying asthmapatients recruited from a national, online pool completed survey tasks from their personal computers. Participants in study 1 were randomly assigned to examine sections of a standard informed consent document for an asthma trial and to select information they deemed critical to their decision making. In study 2, a sample of 83 self-identifying asthmapatients completed experimental tasks in a university laboratory. Participants in study 2 were randomly assigned to a full informed consent document; a shortened, patient-designed informed consent document created from study 1; or a video with content matched to the shortened paper form. RESULTS: Study 1 yielded a more readable, concise version of a standard informed consent document (5 v. 17 pages). This shortened, patient-designed form closely met normative criteria for good clinical practice. In study 2, participants who viewed either the shortened paper consent or video reported greater engagement than those viewing the standard paper consent, without lowered performance on any other decision-relevant variables (i.e., comprehension, judged risk/benefit, feelings of trust). The video consent format did not cause increased enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that providing concise informed consent content, systematically developed from patients' self-reported information needs, may be more effective at engaging and informing clinical trial participants than the traditional consent approach, without detriment to trial comprehension, risk assessment, or enrollment.
Authors: C Calderon; P J Ferrando; A Carmona-Bayonas; U Lorenzo-Seva; C Jara; C Beato; T García; A Ramchandani; B Castelo; M M Muñoz; S Garcia; O Higuera; M Mangas-Izquierdo; P Jimenez-Fonseca Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Nyiramugisha K Niyibizi; Candace D Speight; Gabriel Najarro; Andrea R Mitchell; Ofer Sadan; Yi-An Ko; Neal W Dickert Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2022-03-27 Impact factor: 2.652