Literature DB >> 28317002

Evaluation of the Informed Consent Process of a Multicenter Tuberculosis Treatment Trial.

Kimberley N Chapman1, Eric Pevzner2, Joan M Mangan2, Peter Breese3, Dorcas Lamunu4, Robin Shrestha-Kuwahara2, Joseph G Nakibali5, Stefan V Goldberg6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ethical principles obligate researchers to maximize study participants' comprehension during the informed consent process for clinical trials. A pilot evaluation of the consent process was conducted during an international clinical trial of treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis to assess the feasibility of conducting an evaluation in a larger population and to guide these future efforts.
METHODS: Study staff administered an informed consent assessment tool (ICAT) to a convenience sample of trial participants, measuring comprehension of consent components as derived from the Common Rule and FDA Title 21 Part 50, and satisfaction with the process. Participating site staff completed a consent process questionnaire about consent practices at their respective sites and provided improvement recommendations. ICAT scores and corresponding practices were compared where both were completed.
RESULTS: ICATs (n = 54) were submitted from one site in Spain (n = 10), one in Uganda (n = 30), and five in the United States (n = 14). Participants were primarily male (76%), born in Africa (n = 31, 57%), and had a median age of 27 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 24-42). Median ICAT scores were 80% (IQR: 67-93) for comprehension and 89% (IQR: 78-100) for satisfaction. Ugandan participants scored higher than participants from other sites on comprehension (87% vs. 64%) and satisfaction (100% vs. 78%). Staff from 14 sites completed consent process questionnaires. Median ICAT scores for comprehension and satisfaction were higher at sites that utilized visual aids. Practice recommendations included shorter forms, simpler documents, and supplementary materials.
CONCLUSIONS: Participants achieved high levels (≥80%) of comprehension and satisfaction with their current consent processes. Higher ICAT scores at one site suggest an additional evaluation may identify approaches to improve comprehension and satisfaction in future trials. Through this pilot evaluation, complexities and challenges were identified in obtaining consent in a large, international multicenter trial and provided insights for a more robust assessment of the consent process in future trials.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Comprehension; informed consent; satisfaction; tuberculosis

Year:  2015        PMID: 28317002      PMCID: PMC5351885          DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2015.1015184

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth        ISSN: 2329-4515


  15 in total

1.  The effects of local review on informed consent documents from a multicenter clinical trials consortium.

Authors:  William Burman; Peter Breese; Stephen Weis; Naomi Bock; John Bernardo; Andrew Vernon
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  2003-06

2.  Prospective evaluation of patient comprehension of informed consent.

Authors:  Allison E Crepeau; Bart I McKinney; Maya Fox-Ryvicker; Jennifer Castelli; James Penna; Edward D Wang
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Motivations, understanding, and voluntariness in international randomized trials.

Authors:  Nancy E Kass; Suzanne Maman; Joan Atkinson
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2005 Nov-Dec

4.  Quality assurance in a large clinical trials consortium: the experience of the Tuberculosis Trials Consortium.

Authors:  Laurie Sandman; Ann Mosher; Awal Khan; Jan Tapy; Rany Condos; Scott Ferrell; Andrew Vernon
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2006-07-28       Impact factor: 2.226

5.  Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  S Joffe; E F Cook; P D Cleary; J W Clark; J C Weeks
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-11-24       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Testing an alternate informed consent process.

Authors:  Bernice C Yates; Diane Dodendorf; Judy Lane; Louise LaFramboise; Bunny Pozehl; Kathleen Duncan; Kendra Knodel
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2009 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.381

7.  Education level, primary language, and comprehension of the informed consent process.

Authors:  Peter E Breese; William J Burman; Stefan Goldberg; Stephen E Weis
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.742

8.  Determination of required content of the informed consent process for human participants in biomedical research conducted in the U.S. A practical tool to assist clinical investigators.

Authors:  Cheryl M Chanaud
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2007-12-08       Impact factor: 2.226

9.  Assessing the quality of informed consent in a resource-limited setting: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Ronald Kiguba; Paul Kutyabami; Stephen Kiwuwa; Elly Katabira; Nelson K Sewankambo
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 2.652

Review 10.  Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials.

Authors:  Adam Nishimura; Jantey Carey; Patricia J Erwin; Jon C Tilburt; M Hassan Murad; Jennifer B McCormick
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 2.652

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.