Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials

BMC Medical Ethics

Jennifer B McCormick¹  M Hassan Murad³  Jon C Tilburt¹  Patricia J Erwin⁴  Jantey Carey³  Adam Nishimura² 

[1]Biomedical Ethics Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN USA

[2]University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

[3]Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN USA

[4]Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA

关键词: Systematic review;    Comprehension;    Informed consent;   

Others  :  799929
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6939-14-28

 received in 2013-02-08, accepted in 2013-06-13,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Obtaining informed consent is a cornerstone of biomedical research, yet participants comprehension of presented information is often low. The most effective interventions to improve understanding rates have not been identified.

Purpose

To systematically analyze the random controlled trials testing interventions to research informed consent process. The primary outcome of interest was quantitative rates of participant understanding; secondary outcomes were rates of information retention, satisfaction, and accrual. Interventional categories included multimedia, enhanced consent documents, extended discussions, test/feedback quizzes, and miscellaneous methods.

Methods

The search spanned from database inception through September 2010. It was run on Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid CINAHL, Ovid PsycInfo and Cochrane CENTRAL, ISI Web of Science and Scopus. Five reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened full abstract text to determine eligibility. We included only RCTs. 39 out of 1523 articles fulfilled review criteria (2.6%), with a total of 54 interventions. A data extraction form was created in Distiller, an online reference management system, through an iterative process. One author collected data on study design, population, demographics, intervention, and analytical technique.

Results

Meta-analysis was possible on 22 interventions: multimedia, enhanced form, and extended discussion categories; all 54 interventions were assessed by review. Meta-analysis of multimedia approaches was associated with a non-significant increase in understanding scores (SMD 0.30, 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.84); enhanced consent form, with significant increase (SMD 1.73, 95% CI, 0.99 to 2.47); and extended discussion, with significant increase (SMD 0.53, 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.84). By review, 31% of multimedia interventions showed significant improvement in understanding; 41% for enhanced consent form; 50% for extended discussion; 33% for test/feedback; and 29% for miscellaneous.Multiple sources of variation existed between included studies: control processes, the presence of a human proctor, real vs. simulated protocol, and assessment formats.

Conclusions

Enhanced consent forms and extended discussions were most effective in improving participant understanding. Interventions of all categories had no negative impact on participant satisfaction or study accrual. Identification of best practices for studies of informed consent interventions would aid future systematic comparisons.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Nishimura et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Manson NC, O’Neill O: Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
• [2]Falagas ME, Korbila IP, Giannopoulou KP, Kondilis BK, Peppas G: Informed consent: how much and what do patients understand? Am J Surg 2009, 198(3):420-435.
• [3]Moreno J, Caplan AL, Root WP: Updating protections for human subjects involved in research. JAMA 1998, 280(22):1951-1958.
• [4]Markman M: What must research subjects be told regarding the results of completed randomized trials? IRB: Ethics and Human Research 2004, 26(3):8-10.
• [5]Koyfman SA, McCabe MS, Emanuel EJ, Grady C: A consent from template for phase 1 oncology trials. IRB: Ethics and Human Research 2009, 31(4):1-8.
• [6]Stunkel L, Benson M, McLellan L, Sinaii N, Bedarida G, Emanuel E, Grady C: Comprehension and informed consent: assessing the effect of a short consent form. IRB: Ethics and Human Research 2010, 32(4):1-9.
• [7]McGuire AL, Beskow LM: Informed consent in genomics and genetic research. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2010, 11:361-381.
• [8]Kass NE, Chaisson L, Taylor HA, Lohse J: Length and complexity of US and international HIV consent forms from federal HIV network trials. J Gen Intern Med 2011, 26(11):1324-1328.
• [9]Emanuel EJ, Menikoff J: Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. NEJM 2011, 365(12):1145-1150.
• [10]Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Secretary: Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators”. 2011. FR Doc No: 2011–18792, July 26
• [11]Palmer BW, et al.: Reformed consent: adapting to new media and research participant preferences. IRB: Ethics and Human Research 2009, 31(2):1-8.
• [12]Barbour GL, Blumenkrantz MJ: Videotape aids informed consent decision. JAMA 1978, 240(25):2741-2742.
• [13]Sarkar R, Sowmyanarayanan TV, Samuel P, et al.: Comparison of group counseling with individual counseling in the comprehension of informed consent: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Ethics 2010, 11:8. 14 May
• [14]Flory J, Emanuel E: Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA 2004, 292(13):1593-1601.
• [15]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009, 339:b2535.
• [16]DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986, 7(3):177-188.
• [17]Higgins J, Thompson S, Deeks J, Altman D: Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003, 327(7414):557-560.
• [18]Altman D, Bland J: Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ 2003, 326(7382):219.
• [19]Bickmore TW, Pfeifer LM, Paasche-Orlow MK: Using computer agents to explain medical documents to patients with low health literacy. Patient Educ Couns 2009, 75(3):315-320.
• [20]Freer Y, McIntosh N, Teunisse S, Anand KJ, Boyle EM: More information, less understanding: a randomized study on consent issues in neonatal research. Pediatrics 2009, 123(5):1301-1305.
• [21]Tindall B, Forde S, Ross MW, et al.: Effects of two formats of informed consent on knowledge amongst persons with advanced HIV disease in a clinical trial of didanosine. Patient Educ Couns 1994, 24(3):261-266.
• [22]Eyler LT, Mirzakhanian H, Jeste DV: A preliminary study of interactive questioning methods to assess and improve understanding of informed consent among patients with schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 2005, 75(2–3):193-198.
• [23]Kass NE, Sugarman J, Medley AM, et al.: An intervention to improve cancer patients’ understanding of early-phase clinical trials. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2009, 31(3):1-10.
• [24]Taub HA, Baker MT: The effect of repeated testing upon comprehension of informed consent materials by elderly volunteers. Exp Aging Res 1983, 9(3):135-138.
• [25]Campbell HM, Raisch DW, Sather MR, et al.: Impact of a clinical trials information handbook on patient knowledge, perceptions, and likelihood of participation. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2008, 30(1):6-14.
• [26]Campbell FA, Goldman BD, Boccia ML, Skinner M: The effect of format modifications and reading comprehension on recall of informed consent information by low-income parents: a comparison of print, video, and computer-based presentations. Patient Educ Couns 2004, 53(2):205-216.
• [27]Davis TC, Holcombe RF, Berkel HJ, Pramanik S, Divers SG: Informed consent for clinical trials: a comparative study of standard versus simplified forms. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998, 90(9):668-674.
• [28]Sarkar R, Grandin EW, Gladstone BP, Muliyil J, Kang G: Comprehension and recall of informed consent among participating families in a birth cohort study on diarrhoeal disease. Public Health Ethics 2009, 2(1):37-44.
• [29]Aaronson NK, Visser-Pol E, Leenhouts GH, et al.: Telephone-based nursing intervention improves the effectiveness of the informed consent process in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1996, 14(3):984-996.
• [30]Lavori PW, Wilt TJ, Sugarman J: Quality assurance questionnaire for professionals fails to improve the quality of informed consent. Clin Trials 2007, 4(6):638-649.
• [31]Mittal D, Palmer BW, Dunn LB, et al.: Comparison of two enhanced consent procedures for patients with mild Alzheimer disease or mild cognitive impairment. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2007, 15(2):163-167.
• [32]Hack TF, Whelan T, Olivotto IA, et al.: Standardized audiotape versus recorded consultation to enhance informed consent to a clinical trial in breast oncology. Psychooncology 2007, 16(4):371-376.
• [33]Agre P, Rapkin B: Improving informed consent: a comparison of four consent tools. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2003, 25(6):1-7.
• [34]Henry J, Palmer BW, Palinkas L, et al.: Reformed consent: adapting to new media and research participant preferences. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2009, 31(2):1-8.
• [35]Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Thiel EC, Sem FWC, Harrison Woermke DE: Presenting clinical trial information: A comparison of methods. Patient Educ Couns 1995, 25(2):97-107.
• [36]Fureman I, Meyers K, McLellan AT, Metzger D, Woody G: Evaluation of a video-supplement to informed consent: injection drug users and preventive HIV vaccine efficacy trials. AIDS Educ Prev 1997, 9(4):330-341.
• [37]Weston J, Hannah M, Downes J: Evaluating the benefits of a patient information video during the informed consent process. Patient Educ Couns 1997, 30(3):239-245.
• [38]Wirshing DA, Sergi MJ, Mintz J: A videotape intervention to enhance the informed consent process for medical and psychiatric treatment research.[erratum appears in Am J Psychiatry. 2005 Apr;162(4):832]. Am J Psychiatry 2005, 162(1):186-188.
• [39]Dunn LB, Lindamer LA, Palmer BW, et al.: Improving understanding of research consent in middle-aged and elderly patients with psychotic disorders. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2002, 10(2):142-150.
• [40]Epstein L, Lasagna L: Obtaining informed consent: form or substance. Arch Intern Med 1969, 123(6):682-688.
• [41]Stiles PG, Poythress NG, Hall A, Falkenbach D, Williams R: Improving understanding of research consent disclosures among persons with mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2001, 52(6):780-785.
• [42]Murphy DA, O’Keefe ZH, Kaufman AH: Improving comprehension and recall of information for an HIV vaccine trial among women at risk for HIV: Reading level simplification and inclusion of pictures to illustrate key concepts. AIDS Educ Prev 1999, 11(5):389-399.
• [43]Rogers CG, Tyson JE, Kennedy KA, Broyles RS, Hickman JF: Conventional consent with opting in versus simplified consent with opting out: an exploratory trial for studies that do not increase patient risk.[see comment]. J Pediatr 1998, 132(4):606-611.
• [44]Bjorn E, Rossel P, Holm S: Can the written information to research subjects be improved?–an empirical study. [see comment]. J Med Ethics 1999, 25(3):263-267.
• [45]Taub HA, Baker MT, Kline GE, Sturr JF: Comprehension of informed consent information by young-old through old-old volunteers. Exp Aging Res 1987, 13(4):173-178.
• [46]Simes RJ, Tattersall MH, Coates AS, et al.: Randomised comparison of procedures for obtaining informed consent in clinical trials of treatment for cancer. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986, 293(6554):1065-1068.
• [47]Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A: The effect of format on parents’ understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between text, tables, and graphics. J Health Commun 2010, 15(5):487-501.
• [48]Ford ME, Kallen M, Richardson P, et al.: Effect of social support on informed consent in older adults with Parkinson disease and their caregivers. J Med Ethics 2008, 34(1):41-47.
• [49]Agre P, Campbell FA, Goldman BD, et al.: Improving informed consent: the medium is not the message. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2003, 25(5):S11-S19.
• [50]Paris A, Nogueira da Gama Chaves D, Cornu C, et al.: Improvement of the comprehension of written information given to healthy volunteers in biomedical research: a single-blind randomized controlled study. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2007, 21(2):207-214.
• [51]Paris A, Brandt C, Cornu C, et al.: Informed consent document improvement does not increase patients’ comprehension in biomedical research. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2010, 69(3):231-237.
• [52]Coyne CA, Xu R, Raich P, et al.: Randomized, controlled trial of an easy-to-read informed consent statement for clinical trial participation: a study of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2003, 21(5):836-842.
• [53]Kruse AY, Kjaergard LL, Krogsgaard K, The INFO trial group, et al.: A randomized trial assessing the impact of written information on outpatients’ knowledge about and attitude toward randomized clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 2000, 21(3):223-240.
• [54]Karunaratne AS, Korenman SG, Thomas SL, Myles PS, Komesaroff PA: Improving communication when seeking informed consent: a randomised controlled study of a computer-based method for providing information to prospective clinical trial participants. Medical Journal of Australia 2010, 192(7):388-392.
• [55]Coletti AS, Heagerty P, Sheon AR, et al.: Randomized, controlled evaluation of a prototype informed consent process for HIV vaccine efficacy trials. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2003, 32(2):161-169.
• [56]Hutchison C, Cowan C, McMahon T, Paul J: A randomised controlled study of an audiovisual patient information intervention on informed consent and recruitment to cancer clinical trials. Br J Cancer 2007, 97(6):705-711.
• [57]Taub H, Kline G, Baker M: The elderly and informed consent: effects of vocabulary level and corrected feedback. Exp Aging Res 1981, 7(2):137-146.
• [58]Festinger DS, Marlowe DB, Croft JR, et al.: Monetary incentives improve recall of research consent information: it pays to remember. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 2009, 17(2):99-104.
• [59]Hietanen PS, Aro AR, Holli KA, et al.: A short communication course for physicians improves the quality of patient information in a clinical trial. Acta Oncol 2007, 46(1):42-48.
• [60]Berwick DM: The science of improvement. JAMA 2008, 299(10):1182-1184.
• [61]Ryan RE, Prictor MJ, McLaughlin KJ, Hill SJ: Audio-visual presentation of information for informed consent for participation in clinical trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008, (1):Art. No.: CD003717.