Francesco Gesualdo1, Margherita Daverio2, Laura Palazzani2, Dimitris Dimitriou3, Javier Diez-Domingo4, Jaime Fons-Martinez4, Sally Jackson5, Pascal Vignally5, Caterina Rizzo5, Alberto Eugenio Tozzi5. 1. Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù (OPBG), Piazza di Sant'Onofrio, 4, 00165, Rome, Italy. francesco.gesualdo@opbg.net. 2. Libera Università Maria Ss. Assunta (LUMSA), Via della Traspontina, 21, 00193, Rome, Italy. 3. AND Consulting Group SPRL, Place Marcel Broodthaers, 8, 1060, Brussels, Belgium. 4. The Foundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research of Valencia Region (FISABIO), Avda. de Catalunya, 21, 46020, Valencia, Spain. 5. Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù (OPBG), Piazza di Sant'Onofrio, 4, 00165, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Providing understandable information to patients is necessary to achieve the aims of the Informed Consent process: respecting and promoting patients' autonomy and protecting patients from harm. In recent decades, new, primarily digital technologies have been used to apply and test innovative formats of Informed Consent. We conducted a systematic review to explore the impact of using digital tools for Informed Consent in both clinical research and in clinical practice. Understanding, satisfaction and participation were compared for digital tools versus the non-digital Informed Consent process. METHODS: We searched for studies on available electronic databases, including Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane. Studies were identified using specific Mesh-terms/keywords. We included studies, published from January 2012 to October 2020, that focused on the use of digital Informed Consent tools for clinical research, or clinical procedures. Digital interventions were defined as interventions that used multimedia or audio-video to provide information to patients. We classified the interventions into 3 different categories: video only, non-interactive multimedia, and interactive multimedia. RESULTS: Our search yielded 19,579 publications. After title and abstract screening 100 studies were retained for full-text analysis, of which 73 publications were included. Studies examined interactive multimedia (29/73), non-interactive multimedia (13/73), and videos (31/73), and most (34/38) studies were conducted on adults. Innovations in consent were tested for clinical/surgical procedures (26/38) and clinical research (12/38). For research IC, 21 outcomes were explored, with a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes being observed in 8/12 studies. For clinical/surgical procedures 49 outcomes were explored, and 21/26 studies reported a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Digital technologies for informed consent were not found to negatively affect any of the outcomes, and overall, multimedia tools seem desirable. Multimedia tools indicated a higher impact than videos only. Presence of a researcher may potentially enhance efficacy of different outcomes in research IC processes. Studies were heterogeneous in design, making evaluation of impact challenging. Robust study design including standardization is needed to conclusively assess impact.
BACKGROUND: Providing understandable information to patients is necessary to achieve the aims of the Informed Consent process: respecting and promoting patients' autonomy and protecting patients from harm. In recent decades, new, primarily digital technologies have been used to apply and test innovative formats of Informed Consent. We conducted a systematic review to explore the impact of using digital tools for Informed Consent in both clinical research and in clinical practice. Understanding, satisfaction and participation were compared for digital tools versus the non-digital Informed Consent process. METHODS: We searched for studies on available electronic databases, including Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane. Studies were identified using specific Mesh-terms/keywords. We included studies, published from January 2012 to October 2020, that focused on the use of digital Informed Consent tools for clinical research, or clinical procedures. Digital interventions were defined as interventions that used multimedia or audio-video to provide information to patients. We classified the interventions into 3 different categories: video only, non-interactive multimedia, and interactive multimedia. RESULTS: Our search yielded 19,579 publications. After title and abstract screening 100 studies were retained for full-text analysis, of which 73 publications were included. Studies examined interactive multimedia (29/73), non-interactive multimedia (13/73), and videos (31/73), and most (34/38) studies were conducted on adults. Innovations in consent were tested for clinical/surgical procedures (26/38) and clinical research (12/38). For research IC, 21 outcomes were explored, with a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes being observed in 8/12 studies. For clinical/surgical procedures 49 outcomes were explored, and 21/26 studies reported a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Digital technologies for informed consent were not found to negatively affect any of the outcomes, and overall, multimedia tools seem desirable. Multimedia tools indicated a higher impact than videos only. Presence of a researcher may potentially enhance efficacy of different outcomes in research IC processes. Studies were heterogeneous in design, making evaluation of impact challenging. Robust study design including standardization is needed to conclusively assess impact.
Entities:
Keywords:
Digital tools; Informed consent; Innovation; Multimedia; RCT; Systematic review; Video
Authors: Niamh Chapman; Rebekah McWhirter; Matthew K Armstrong; Ricardo Fonseca; Julie A Campbell; Mark Nelson; Martin G Schultz; James E Sharman Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-07-26 Impact factor: 2.692
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: Emanuelle Pessa Valente; Ilaria Mariani; Benedetta Covi; Marzia Lazzerini Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Fuad Abujarad; Peter Peduzzi; Sophia Mun; Kristina Carlson; Chelsea Edwards; James Dziura; Cynthia Brandt; Sandra Alfano; Geoffrey Chupp Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2021-10-19
Authors: Claudia Neumann; Grigorij Schleifer; Nadine Strassberger-Nerschbach; Johannes Kamp; Gregor Massoth; Alexandra Görtzen-Patin; Dishalen Cudian; Markus Velten; Mark Coburn; Ehrenfried Schindler; Maria Wittmann Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Robin Chatters; Cindy L Cooper; Alicia O'Cathain; Caroline Murphy; Athene Lane; Katie Sutherland; Christopher Burton; Angela Cape; Louis Tunnicliffe Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 4.612