Alexander C Fanaroff1, Shuang Li2, Laura E Webb2, Vincent Miller2, Ann Marie Navar2, Eric D Peterson2, Tracy Y Wang2. 1. Department of Medicine (A.C.F., A.M.N., E.D.P., T.Y.W.) and Duke Clinical Research Institute (A.C.F., A.M.N., E.D.P., T.Y.W., S.L., L.E.W., V.M.,), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. alexander.fanaroff@duke.edu. 2. Department of Medicine (A.C.F., A.M.N., E.D.P., T.Y.W.) and Duke Clinical Research Institute (A.C.F., A.M.N., E.D.P., T.Y.W., S.L., L.E.W., V.M.,), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient participation in clinical research is low, in part because of the length and complexity of the informed consent process. Video informed consent may enhance the appeal of research and help break down barriers to participation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PALM study (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) enrolled 7904 patients at cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care clinics across the United States to evaluate cholesterol management practices. Of 153 participating clinics, 67 (43.8%) secured institutional review board approval to use a tablet-based video informed consent tool that patients could select to navigate through the informed consent process instead of traditional text-based informed consent. At sites without institutional review board approval of video consent, all patients read a text-based informed consent document. Site activation times and enrollment volumes, as well as characteristics of enrolled patients, were compared between sites with and without video consent capability. Sites with video consent capability more often used a central institutional review board (89.6% versus 73.3%), were more often rural (16.7% versus 3.8%), and tended to have fewer providers. Compared with sites without video consent capability, sites with video consent capability had shorter times from site approach to first patient enrollment (median 178 versus 207 days; P=0.02). Sites with video consent capability enrolled similar numbers of patients as sites without video consent capability (P=0.48) but enrolled a greater proportion of patients who were ≥75 years old (27.5% versus 23.6%; P<0.001) and nonwhite (17.7% versus 14.2%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study of recruitment in a multicenter registry, sites approved for video consent use enrolled the same number of patients as sites with only traditional text-based informed consent but had faster speed to first patient enrolled and more often enrolled older and nonwhite patients. Future randomized trials are needed to assess the impact of video consent on enrollment mechanics and demographics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02341664.
BACKGROUND:Patient participation in clinical research is low, in part because of the length and complexity of the informed consent process. Video informed consent may enhance the appeal of research and help break down barriers to participation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PALM study (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) enrolled 7904 patients at cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care clinics across the United States to evaluate cholesterol management practices. Of 153 participating clinics, 67 (43.8%) secured institutional review board approval to use a tablet-based video informed consent tool that patients could select to navigate through the informed consent process instead of traditional text-based informed consent. At sites without institutional review board approval of video consent, all patients read a text-based informed consent document. Site activation times and enrollment volumes, as well as characteristics of enrolled patients, were compared between sites with and without video consent capability. Sites with video consent capability more often used a central institutional review board (89.6% versus 73.3%), were more often rural (16.7% versus 3.8%), and tended to have fewer providers. Compared with sites without video consent capability, sites with video consent capability had shorter times from site approach to first patient enrollment (median 178 versus 207 days; P=0.02). Sites with video consent capability enrolled similar numbers of patients as sites without video consent capability (P=0.48) but enrolled a greater proportion of patients who were ≥75 years old (27.5% versus 23.6%; P<0.001) and nonwhite (17.7% versus 14.2%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study of recruitment in a multicenter registry, sites approved for video consent use enrolled the same number of patients as sites with only traditional text-based informed consent but had faster speed to first patient enrolled and more often enrolled older and nonwhite patients. Future randomized trials are needed to assess the impact of video consent on enrollment mechanics and demographics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02341664.
Authors: Kenneth W Mahaffey; Daniel M Wojdyla; Kevin Carroll; Richard C Becker; Robert F Storey; Dominick J Angiolillo; Claes Held; Christopher P Cannon; Stefan James; Karen S Pieper; Jay Horrow; Robert A Harrington; Lars Wallentin Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-06-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Areej El-Jawahri; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Dan Matlock; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Eldrin F Lewis; Garrick Stewart; Marc Semigran; Yuchiao Chang; Kimberly Parks; Elizabeth S Walker-Corkery; Jennifer S Temel; Hacho Bohossian; Henry Ooi; Eileen Mann; Angelo E Volandes Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: W Schuyler Jones; Matthew T Roe; Elliott M Antman; Mark J Pletcher; Robert A Harrington; Russell L Rothman; William J Oetgen; Sunil V Rao; Mitchell W Krucoff; Lesley H Curtis; Adrian F Hernandez; Frederick A Masoudi Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-10-25 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Angelo E Volandes; Laurie Anne Ferguson; Aretha D Davis; Nathan C Hull; Michael J Green; Yuchiao Chang; Kristy Deep; Michael K Paasche-Orlow Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Nancy S Sung; William F Crowley; Myron Genel; Patricia Salber; Lewis Sandy; Louis M Sherwood; Stephen B Johnson; Veronica Catanese; Hugh Tilson; Kenneth Getz; Elaine L Larson; David Scheinberg; E Albert Reece; Harold Slavkin; Adrian Dobs; Jack Grebb; Rick A Martinez; Allan Korn; David Rimoin Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-03-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nicholas S Downing; Nilay D Shah; Joseph H Neiman; Jenerius A Aminawung; Harlan M Krumholz; Joseph S Ross Journal: Trials Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Tyler J Loftus; Maria E Alfaro; Tiffany N Anderson; Travis W Murphy; Olga Zayko; John P Davis; Zachary A Hothem; Dijoia B Darden; Rohit P Patel; Wanda Whittet; Edward K McGough; Azra Bihorac; Chasen A Croft; Martin D Rosenthal; R Stephen Smith; Erin L Vanzant; Fredrick A Moore; Scott C Brakenridge; Gabriela L Ghita; Babette A Brumback; Alicia M Mohr; Philip A Efron Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2020-11-23
Authors: Guillaume Marquis-Gravel; Holly Robertson; W Schuyler Jones; Danielle Riley; Daniel E Ford; David Crenshaw; Yvonne A Joosten; Lindsey Rudov; Adrian F Hernandez; Rachel Hess Journal: Trials Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Sanne Franzen; Jade Emily Smith; Esther van den Berg; Monica Rivera Mindt; Rozemarijn L van Bruchem-Visser; Erin L Abner; Lon S Schneider; Niels D Prins; Ganesh M Babulal; Janne M Papma Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 16.655