Literature DB >> 30938751

Does an interactive trust-enhanced electronic consent improve patient experiences when asked to share their health records for research? A randomized trial.

Christopher A Harle1,2, Elizabeth H Golembiewski1, Kiarash P Rahmanian3, Babette Brumback4, Janice L Krieger5, Kenneth W Goodman6, Arch G Mainous3,7, Ray E Moseley3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In the context of patient broad consent for future research uses of their identifiable health record data, we compare the effectiveness of interactive trust-enhanced e-consent, interactive-only e-consent, and standard e-consent (no interactivity, no trust enhancement).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized trial was conducted involving adult participants making a scheduled primary care visit. Participants were randomized into 1 of the 3 e-consent conditions. Primary outcomes were patient-reported satisfaction with and subjective understanding of the e-consent. Secondary outcomes were objective knowledge, perceived voluntariness, trust in medical researchers, consent decision, and time spent using the application. Outcomes were assessed immediately after use of the e-consent and at 1-week follow-up.
RESULTS: Across all conditions, participants (N = 734) reported moderate-to-high satisfaction with consent (mean 4.3 of 5) and subjective understanding (79.1 of 100). Over 94% agreed to share their health record data. No statistically significant differences in outcomes were observed between conditions. Irrespective of condition, black participants and those with lower education reported lower satisfaction, subjective understanding, knowledge, perceived voluntariness, and trust in medical researchers, as well as spent more time consenting.
CONCLUSIONS: A large majority of patients were willing to share their identifiable health records for research, and they reported positive consent experiences. However, incorporating optional additional information and messages designed to enhance trust in the research process did not improve consent experiences. To improve poorer consent experiences of racial and ethnic minority participants and those with lower education, other novel consent technologies and processes may be valuable. (An Interactive Patient-Centered Consent for Research Using Medical Records; NCT03063268).
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Common Rule; broad consent; e-consent; electronic health record; information systems design; research informatics

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30938751      PMCID: PMC6562160          DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocz015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   4.497


  47 in total

1.  Development of a measure to assess patient trust in medical researchers.

Authors:  Arch G Mainous; Daniel W Smith; Mark E Geesey; Barbara C Tilley
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2006 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.166

Review 2.  "Big data" and the electronic health record.

Authors:  M K Ross; W Wei; L Ohno-Machado
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2014-08-15

3.  Public preferences about secondary uses of electronic health information.

Authors:  David Grande; Nandita Mitra; Anand Shah; Fei Wan; David A Asch
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 21.873

4.  Understanding the decisions of cancer clinical trial participants to enter research studies: factors associated with informed consent, patient satisfaction, and decisional regret.

Authors:  Jo Ellen Stryker; Ricardo J Wray; Karen M Emmons; Eric Winer; George Demetri
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2005-10-19

5.  The decision making control instrument to assess voluntary consent.

Authors:  Victoria A Miller; Richard F Ittenbach; Diana Harris; William W Reynolds; Tom L Beauchamp; Mary Frances Luce; Robert M Nelson
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011-03-14       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Improving participant comprehension in the informed consent process.

Authors:  Elizabeth Cohn; Elaine Larson
Journal:  J Nurs Scholarsh       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 3.176

7.  Reasons for enrollment, the informed consent process, and trust among low-income women participating in a community-based participatory research study.

Authors:  Shawn M Kneipp; Barbara J Lutz; Deirdra Means
Journal:  Public Health Nurs       Date:  2009 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.462

8.  Comparison of the informed consent process for randomized clinical trials in pediatric and adult oncology.

Authors:  Christian M Simon; Laura A Siminoff; Eric D Kodish; Christopher Burant
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-07-01       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Patients want granular privacy control over health information in electronic medical records.

Authors:  Kelly Caine; Rima Hanania
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-11-26       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 10.  Big Data Application in Biomedical Research and Health Care: A Literature Review.

Authors:  Jake Luo; Min Wu; Deepika Gopukumar; Yiqing Zhao
Journal:  Biomed Inform Insights       Date:  2016-01-19
View more
  11 in total

1.  The importance of consumer- and patient-oriented perspectives in biomedical and health informatics.

Authors:  Suzanne Bakken
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  An Electronic Tool to Support Patient-Centered Broad Consent: A Multi-Arm Randomized Clinical Trial in Family Medicine.

Authors:  Elizabeth H Golembiewski; Arch G Mainous; Kiarash P Rahmanian; Babette Brumback; Benjamin J Rooks; Janice L Krieger; Kenneth W Goodman; Ray E Moseley; Christopher A Harle
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2021 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.166

3.  Demographic differences in willingness to share electronic health records in the All of Us Research Program.

Authors:  Christine L M Joseph; Amy Tang; David W Chesla; Mara M Epstein; Pamala A Pawloski; Alan B Stevens; Stephen C Waring; Brian K Ahmedani; Christine C Johnson; Cathryn D Peltz-Rauchman
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 7.942

4.  Knowledge and Attitudes of Research Participants in China Toward Electronic Informed Consent in Clinical Trials: A Cross Sectional Study.

Authors:  Zhanqing Hu; Chenxi Ouyang; Jessica Hahne; Kaveh Khoshnood; Jinqiang Zhang; Xiyu Liu; Ying Wu; Xiaomin Wang
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2022-01-28       Impact factor: 1.978

Review 5.  Key components and IT assistance of participant management in clinical research: a scoping review.

Authors:  Johannes Pung; Otto Rienhoff
Journal:  JAMIA Open       Date:  2020-10-14

Review 6.  Human-Computer Interaction, Ethics, and Biomedical Informatics.

Authors:  Harry Hochheiser; Rupa S Valdez
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2020-08-21

7.  Implementation of Electronic Informed Consent in Biomedical Research and Stakeholders' Perspectives: Systematic Review.

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

8.  Perspectives of Pregnant and Breastfeeding Women on Participating in Longitudinal Mother-Baby Studies Involving Electronic Health Records: Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Austen Hentschel; Chu J Hsiao; Lynn Y Chen; Lauren Wright; Jennifer Shaw; Xinsong Du; Elizabeth Flood-Grady; Christopher A Harle; Callie F Reeder; Magda Francois; Adetola Louis-Jacques; Elizabeth Shenkman; Janice L Krieger; Dominick J Lemas
Journal:  JMIR Pediatr Parent       Date:  2021-03-05

Review 9.  Electronic consenting for conducting research remotely: A review of current practice and key recommendations for using e-consenting.

Authors:  Emily Skelton; Nicholas Drey; Mary Rutherford; Susan Ayers; Christina Malamateniou
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2020-09-13       Impact factor: 4.046

10.  Enhancing Recruitment and Retention of Minority Populations for Clinical Research in Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Authors:  Neeta Thakur; Stephanie Lovinsky-Desir; Donna Appell; Christian Bime; Lauren Castro; Juan C Celedón; Juliana Ferreira; Maureen George; Yolanda Mageto; Arch G Mainous III; Smita Pakhale; Kristin A Riekert; Jesse Roman; Elizabeth Ruvalcaba; Sunil Sharma; Priya Shete; Juan P Wisnivesky; Fernando Holguin
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2021-08-01       Impact factor: 21.405

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.