Emily E Anderson1, Susan B Newman2, Alicia K Matthews3. 1. a Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago. 2. b Center for Clinical and Translational Science , University of Illinois at Chicago. 3. c College of Nursing , University of Illinois at Chicago.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Innovation will be required to improve the informed consent process in research. We aimed to obtain input from key stakeholders-research participants and those responsible for obtaining informed consent-to inform potential development of a multimedia informed consent "app." METHODS: This descriptive study used a mixed-methods approach. Five 90-minute focus groups were conducted with volunteer samples of former research participants and researchers/research staff responsible for obtaining informed consent. Participants also completed a brief survey that measured background information and knowledge and attitudes regarding research and the use of technology. Established qualitative methods were used to conduct the focus groups and data analysis. RESULTS: We conducted five focus groups with 41 total participants: three groups with former research participants (total n = 22), and two groups with researchers and research coordinators (total n = 19). Overall, individuals who had previously participated in research had positive views regarding their experiences. However, further discussion elicited that the informed consent process often did not meet its intended objectives. Findings from both groups are presented according to three primary themes: content of consent forms, experience of the informed consent process, and the potential of technology to improve the informed consent process. A fourth theme, need for lay input on informed consent, emerged from the researcher groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings add to previous research that suggests that the use of interactive technology has the potential to improve the process of informed consent. However, our focus-group findings provide additional insight that technology cannot replace the human connection that is central to the informed consent process. More research that incorporates the views of key stakeholders is needed to ensure that multimedia consent processes do not repeat the mistakes of paper-based consent forms.
PURPOSE: Innovation will be required to improve the informed consent process in research. We aimed to obtain input from key stakeholders-research participants and those responsible for obtaining informed consent-to inform potential development of a multimedia informed consent "app." METHODS: This descriptive study used a mixed-methods approach. Five 90-minute focus groups were conducted with volunteer samples of former research participants and researchers/research staff responsible for obtaining informed consent. Participants also completed a brief survey that measured background information and knowledge and attitudes regarding research and the use of technology. Established qualitative methods were used to conduct the focus groups and data analysis. RESULTS: We conducted five focus groups with 41 total participants: three groups with former research participants (total n = 22), and two groups with researchers and research coordinators (total n = 19). Overall, individuals who had previously participated in research had positive views regarding their experiences. However, further discussion elicited that the informed consent process often did not meet its intended objectives. Findings from both groups are presented according to three primary themes: content of consent forms, experience of the informed consent process, and the potential of technology to improve the informed consent process. A fourth theme, need for lay input on informed consent, emerged from the researcher groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings add to previous research that suggests that the use of interactive technology has the potential to improve the process of informed consent. However, our focus-group findings provide additional insight that technology cannot replace the human connection that is central to the informed consent process. More research that incorporates the views of key stakeholders is needed to ensure that multimedia consent processes do not repeat the mistakes of paper-based consent forms.
Authors: Richard F Brown; Elyse Shuk; Phyllis Butow; Shawna Edgerson; Martin H N Tattersall; Jamie S Ostroff Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2010-08-02
Authors: M Holmes-Rovner; J Kroll; N Schmitt; D R Rovner; M L Breer; M L Rothert; G Padonu; G Talarczyk Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 1996 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Margaret M Byrne; Stacey L Tannenbaum; Stefan Glück; Judith Hurley; Michael Antoni Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2013-07-29 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Lauren A McCormack; Amanda Wylie; Rebecca Moultrie; Robert D Furberg; Anne C Wheeler; Katherine Treiman; Donald B Bailey; Melissa Raspa Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Christian M Simon; Kai Wang; Laura A Shinkunas; Daniel T Stein; Paul Meissner; Maureen Smith; Rebecca Pentz; David W Klein Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2021-08-19 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Christine M Suver; Jennifer K Hamann; Erin M Chin; Felicia C Goldstein; Hanna M Blazel; Cecelia M Manzanares; Megan J Doerr; Sanjay J Asthana; Lara M Mangravite; Allan I Levey; James J Lah; Dorothy F Edwards Journal: AJOB Empir Bioeth Date: 2020-03-16
Authors: Evelien De Sutter; Drieda Zaçe; Stefania Boccia; Maria Luisa Di Pietro; David Geerts; Pascal Borry; Isabelle Huys Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Stephanie A Kraft; Erin Rothwell; Seema K Shah; Devan M Duenas; Hannah Lewis; Kristin Muessig; Douglas J Opel; Katrina A B Goddard; Benjamin S Wilfond Journal: J Med Ethics Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 2.903