A Video-Based Consent Tool: Development and Effect of Risk–Benefit Framing on Intention to Randomize

A Video-Based Consent Tool: Development and Effect of Risk–Benefit Framing on Intention to Randomize
Alex Lois, Jonathan E. Kohler, Sarah E. Monsell, Kelsey M. Pullar, Jesse Victory, Stephen R. Odom, Katherine Fischkoff, Amy H. Kaji, Heather L. Evans, Vance Sohn, Lillian S. Kao, Shah-Jahan Dodwad, Anne P. Ehlers, Hasan B. Alam, Pauline K. Park, Anusha Krishnadasan, David A. Talan, Nicole Siparsky, Thea P. Price, Patricia Ayoung-Chee, William Chiang, Matthew Salzberg, Alan Jones, Matthew E. Kutcher, Mike K. Liang, Callie M. Thompson, Wesley H. Self, Bonnie Bizzell, Bryan A. Comstock, Danielle C. Lavallee, David R. Flum, Erin Fannon, Larry G. Kessler, Patrick J. Heagerty, Sarah O. Lawrence, Tam N. Pham, Giana H. Davidson
Journal of Surgical Research, March 2023; 283 pp 357-367
Abstract
Introduction
Nearly 75% of clinical trials fail to enroll enough participants, and cohorts often fail to reflect the clinical and demographic diversity of at-risk populations. Effective recruitment strategies are critically important for successful clinical trials. Framing treatment risks are known to affect medical decision-making for both physicians and patients but has not been rigorously studied in surgical trials. We sought to examine the impact of a high-quality video-based consent tool and the effect of risk–benefit framing on patient willingness to participate in a surgical clinical trial.
Methods
A standardized video consent was shown to all potential participants in the Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, a randomized controlled trial comparing antibiotics and surgery for acute appendicitis. We report (1) differences in recruitment between two versions of a video-based tool that differed in production quality and (2) the impact of risk–benefit framing on participant randomization rates. The reasons for declining randomization were also assessed.
Results
Of 4697 eligible patients approached to participate in the CODA trial, 1535 (33% [95% confidence interval (CI): 31%-34%]) agreed to randomization; this did not change from video version 1 to version 2. There was no difference in participation between positively framed videos (32% [95% CI: 30%-34%]) versus negatively framed videos (33.0% [95% CI: 30.8-35.2]). The most common reason for declining participation was treatment preference (72% for surgery and 18% for antibiotics).
Conclusions
Neither the change from video 1 to video 2 nor the positive versus negative framing affected participant willingness to randomize. The stakeholder-informed video-based consenting tool used in CODA was an effective strategy for the recruitment of a heterogeneous patient population within the proposed study period.