Literature DB >> 9580757

Conventional consent with opting in versus simplified consent with opting out: an exploratory trial for studies that do not increase patient risk.

C G Rogers1, J E Tyson, K A Kennedy, R S Broyles, J F Hickman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess a modified consent procedure allowed under federal regulations and developed for studies, particularly clinical trials, that are judged by the Institutional Review Board to reduce or have no effect on patient risk. STUDY
DESIGN: This was a randomized trial of a conventional consent procedure that required parental signature to give consent (opting in) after a comprehensive disclosure of the rights of participants in research versus a modified consent procedure that required parental signature to refuse consent (opting out) after specific disclosures appropriate when risk is not increased. Consent was sought for a trial of primary follow-up care for disadvantaged infants at high risk, a trial judged by our Institutional Review Board to increase access to care for both groups. A blinded assessor interviewed mothers within 24 hours of the consent decision.
RESULTS: Among the 44 mothers interviewed, the modified consent group scored higher than the conventional consent group in recall and understanding of study purpose and methods (47% vs 30%; p < 0.02). Other comparisons provided no evidence that the modified consent procedure was less desirable. Virtually all mothers reported satisfaction.
CONCLUSIONS: The modified approach may improve communication and facilitate studies judged by the Institutional Review Board to be risk-neutral or risk-reducing. Further evaluation of a modified consent procedure for such studies is warranted.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9580757     DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3476(98)70347-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pediatr        ISSN: 0022-3476            Impact factor:   4.406


  28 in total

1.  Presumed consent in emergency neonatal research.

Authors:  D J Manning
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Consent for clinical research in the neonatal intensive care unit: a retrospective survey and a prospective study.

Authors:  E Burgess; N Singhal; H Amin; D D McMillan; H Devrome
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 5.747

3.  Parental views on informed consent for expanded newborn screening.

Authors:  Louise Moody; Kubra Choudhry
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of "opt-in" versus "opt-out" strategies.

Authors:  Cornelia Junghans; Gene Feder; Harry Hemingway; Adam Timmis; Melvyn Jones
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-09-12

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

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

6.  Use of a modified informed consent process among vulnerable patients: a descriptive study.

Authors:  Rebecca L Sudore; C Seth Landefeld; Brie A Williams; Deborah E Barnes; Karla Lindquist; Dean Schillinger
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Improved informed consent documents for biomedical research do not increase patients' understanding but reduce enrolment: a study in real settings.

Authors:  Adeline Paris; Béatrice Deygas; Catherine Cornu; Claire Thalamas; Patrick Maison; Christian Duale; Maty Kane; Enkelejda Hodaj; Jean-Luc Cracowski
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-09-21       Impact factor: 4.335

8.  Enhancing patient understanding of medical procedures: evaluation of an interactive multimedia program with in-line exercises.

Authors:  Alan R Tait; Terri Voepel-Lewis; Stanley J Chetcuti; Colleen Brennan-Martinez; Robert Levine
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2014-02-03       Impact factor: 4.046

Review 9.  Strategies for increasing recruitment to randomised controlled trials: systematic review.

Authors:  Patrina H Y Caldwell; Sana Hamilton; Alvin Tan; Jonathan C Craig
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2010-11-09       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  Methods and practices of investigators for determining participants' decisional capacity and comprehension of protocols.

Authors:  Alexander A Kon; Michael Klug
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 1.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.