Informed Consent: A Monthly Review
_________________

December 2024 :: Issue 72

In preparing this digest, we monitor a broad range of academic journals and utilize Google Scholar to search articles referencing  informed consent or assent. After careful consideration, a selection of these results appear in the digest. We also monitor other research, analysis, guidance and commentary beyond the academic literature globally, including calls for public consultation and symposia/conferences which address consent/assent in whole or in part. We recognize that some of the arguments presented in this edition may be controversial and may warrant closer scrutiny. We have elected to be generous in our inclusion with the goal of presentating of a wholistic landscape of informed consent literature as it is being published. We acknowledge that this scope yields an indicative and not an exhaustive digest product.

Informed Consent: A Monthly Review is a service of the Center for Informed Consent Integrity, a program of the GE2P2 Global Foundation. The Foundation is solely responsible for its content. Comments and suggestions should be directed to:

Editor
Paige Fitzsimmons, MA
Associate Director, Center for Informed Consent Integrity
GE2P2 Global Foundation
paige.fitzsimmons@ge2p2global.org

PDF Version: Center for Informed Consent Integrity – A Monthly Review_December 2024

Spotlight

This month we spotlight the new set of principles supporting ethical human genomic data collection and sharing released by the WHO in late November. In this normative guidance,  WHO addresses eight principles [detailed below], many of which touch on consent either directly or indirectly. In particular, the first principle [3.1] presents a number of consent-related recommendations which we highlight here:

3.1. To affirm and value the rights of individuals and communities to make decisions
   A commitment to affirm and value the rights and interests of individuals with capacity to make informed decisions about their human genome data throughout the data life cycle. In addition, a commitment to affirm the best interests of, and support for, individuals who do not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves.

The use of human genome data has implications beyond the individual, and the relevant views of family members and communities on collection, access to, use and sharing of these data should be taken into account throughout the data life cycle.

Recommendations: [selected]
:: Informed consent should be as specific and granular as possible in relation to the potential uses (including by for-profit entities and the potential to share the data to train artificial intelligence), benefits and harms possibly resulting from the use of human genome data, the infrastructure hosting the data (including location and access modalities), and this information must be tailored to respect social and cultural contexts.
:: The most appropriate informed consent model (e.g. specific, broad, tiered or dynamic informed consent) depends upon the individual/local context.
:: Informed consent should be supported by governance frameworks and processes, and individuals should be informed of such processes…
:: Individuals, families and communities should have access to clear, transparent, accessible, understandable and ongoing communication about their human genome data collection, access, use and sharing, for those who wish to receive that information. This ongoing communication should, where possible, continue throughout the data life cycle.
:: Individuals and their representative communities should be engaged in the governance and decision-making process regarding collection, access to, use and sharing of human genome data, including the development of appropriate informed consent models and processes.
:: Children, when sufficiently mature to understand what is involved in their participation, should be given the opportunity to affirm the informed consent previously given on their behalf or to withdraw their consent from that point onwards….

Below, we provide excerpts from the WHO media release and the full citation/overview of the guidance document.

WHO releases new principles for ethical human genomic data collection and sharing
20 November 2024
The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued a set of principles for the ethical collection, access, use and sharing of human genomic data. Created with guidance from the WHO Technical Advisory Group on Genomics (TAG-G) and other international experts, these principles establish a global approach to help protect individual rights, promote equity and foster responsible collaboration in genomic research…

“The potential of genomics to revolutionize health and disease understanding can only be realized if human genomic data are collected, accessed and shared responsibly,” says Dr  John Reeder, Director of WHO’s Research for Health Department. “This document outlines globally applicable principles designed to guide ethical, legal and equitable use of human genome data, fostering public trust and protecting the rights of individuals and communities. It serves as a call to action, urging all stakeholders to adhere to these principles and ensure the benefits of genomic advancements are accessible to everyone.”

The principles emphasize several core themes:
:: Informed consent and privacy are foundational, with clear guidelines to ensure that individuals understand and agree to how their genomic data will be used. WHO underscores the importance of transparency, requiring that data collection processes are openly communicated and safeguarded against misuse.
:: Another core focus is equity. The principles call for targeted efforts to address disparities in genomic research, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and for ensuring that genomic research benefits populations in all their diversity. By prioritizing the inclusion of underrepresented groups, the guidelines aim to promote broader and fairer representation in genomic research and its applications.
:: Recognizing the importance of international collaboration through partnerships across borders and sectors, WHO encourages collaborative efforts between governments, academia and the private sector to maximize the positive impact of genomic research. Responsible data sharing, supported by robust governance structures, is essential for advancing global health while respecting privacy.
:: WHO’s principles also address capacity building in regions with limited genomic infrastructure. By encouraging investment in local expertise and resources, the organization aims to close global disparities in research capacity, making genomic data practices more inclusive and sustainable.

The release of these principles represents a significant step forward in WHO’s mission to promote ethical genomics practices. As the field continues to evolve, these guidelines offer a trusted framework to support genomic research that is equitable, transparent and respectful of individual rights.

Guidance for human genome data collection, access, use and sharing
WHO – Guidance [normative]
20 November 2024 :: 22 pages
Overview
The ethical, legal, and equitable sharing of human genomic data is critical to advancing global health research and ensuring fair access to the benefits of genomics. The WHO’s new document outlines a comprehensive set of globally applicable principles designed to guide stakeholders in the responsible collection, use, and sharing of human genome data. This document serves as a key resource to navigate complex issues surrounding data governance, with the aim of fostering transparency, promoting equity, and safeguarding individual and collective rights. These principles are intended to support the implementation of best practices across diverse settings, thereby enhancing the global capacity for genomic research and its translation into health benefits for all.

Table of Contents [excerpt]
3.0 Principles for human genome collection, access, use and sharing
3.1 To affirm and value the rights of individuals and communities to make decisions
3.2 Social justice
3.3 Solidarity
3.4. Equitable access to and benefit from human genome data
3.5 Collaboration, cooperation and partnership
3.6. Stewardship of human genome data
3.7. Transparency
3.8. Accountability 

Glossary [excerpt]
Benefit-sharing refers to profit-sharing agreements, equitable access to diagnostics, therapeutics and technology transfer, as well as capacity-building and -strengthening initiatives. What constitutes a benefit (and the nature of that benefit) is both subjective and context dependent

Human genome data include but is not limited to:
–         DNA sequence(s) from the nuclear and mitochondrial genomes.
–         Transcriptome (complete set of RNA transcripts).
–         Proteome (complete set of proteins produced by an organism, from which the corresponding
–         genetic sequences can be inferred)
–         Methylome and other epigenetic modifications.

Consent-Related Outcomes in the Alteplase Compared to Tenecteplase Trial

Consent-Related Outcomes in the Alteplase Compared to Tenecteplase Trial
Michel C. Shamy, Brian Dewar, Yan Deschaintre, Nishita Singh, Carol Kenney, Mohammed A. Almekhlafi, Ayoola Ademola, Brian H. Buck, Tolulope T. Sajobi, Luciana Catanese, Kayla D. Sage, Dar Dowlatshahi, Laura C. Gioia, Aleksander Tkach, Richard H. Swartz, Bijoy K. Menon
Neurology, 26 November 2024
Abstract
Background and Objectives
In recent years, researchers have sought to address the challenges of obtaining informed consent for participation in acute stroke trials. We studied outcomes related to the use of deferral of consent in the phase 3 Alteplase Compared to Tenecteplase (AcT) trial.
Methods
As part of our protocol, we captured methods of consent, participant withdrawals, door-to-randomization times, and door-to-needle times. Participants at 3 sites were invited to complete a survey of attitudes regarding consent for AcT and for acute stroke trials generally.
Results
The AcT trial enrolled 1,600 participants from 22 centers across Canada of whom 1,537 were enrolled through deferral of consent (96.0%) and 63 (4.0%) were enrolled by prospective verbal consent followed by written informed consent. Of those enrolled by deferral of consent, 95% (1,454/1,537) consented to ongoing participation. Door-to-randomization times were similar regardless of method of consent, with an overall median of 30 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 22–42): 29 minutes (IQR 22–42) in the deferral of consent group vs 32 minutes (IQR 25–44) in the prospective consent group (p = 0.1602). Survey respondents overwhelming agreed or strongly agreed with the use of deferral of consent in AcT (86%) and in any acute stroke trial (76%).
Discussion
Deferral of consent was broadly acceptable to participants in the AcT trial as demonstrated by low rates of withdrawal and by survey results. Door-to-randomization times using deferral of consent in AcT were short, although a system of prospective verbal consent used at 1 center took only slightly longer. These results support the importance of innovation around consent for acute stroke trials.

Insights From the Development of a Dynamic Consent Platform for the Australians Together Health Initiative (ATHENA) Program: Interview and Survey Study

Insights From the Development of a Dynamic Consent Platform for the Australians Together Health Initiative (ATHENA) Program: Interview and Survey Study
Eddy Xiong, Carissa Bonner, Amanda King, Zoltan Maxwell Bourne, Mark Morgan, Ximena Tolosa, Tony Stanton, Kim Greaves
JMIR Formative Research, 6 November 2024
Abstract
Background
Dynamic consent has the potential to address many of the issues facing traditional paper-based or electronic consent, including enrolling informed and engaged participants in the decision-making process. The Australians Together Health Initiative (ATHENA) program aims to connect participants across Queensland, Australia, with new research opportunities. At its core is dynamic consent, an interactive and participant-centric digital platform that enables users to view ongoing research activities, update consent preferences, and have ongoing engagement with researchers.
Objective
This study aimed to describe the development of the ATHENA dynamic consent platform within the framework of the ATHENA program, including how the platform was designed, its utilization by participants, and the insights gained.
Methods
One-on-one interviews were undertaken with consumers, followed by a workshop with health care staff to gain insights into the dynamic consent concept. Five problem statements were developed, and solutions were posed, from which a dynamic consent platform was constructed, tested, and used for implementation in a clinical trial. Potential users were randomly recruited from a pre-existing pool of 615 participants in the ATHENA program. Feedback on user platform experience was gained from a survey hosted on the platform.
Results
In the 13 consumer interviews undertaken, participants were positive about dynamic consent, valuing privacy, ease of use, and adequate communication. Motivators for registration were feedback on data usage and its broader community benefits. Problem statements were security, trust and governance, ease of use, communication, control, and need for a scalable platform. Using the newly constructed dynamic consent platform, 99 potential participants were selected, of whom 67 (68%) were successfully recontacted. Of these, 59 (88%) agreed to be sent the platform, 44 (74%) logged on (indicating use), and 22 (57%) registered for the clinical trial. Survey feedback was favorable, with an average positive rating of 78% across all questions, reflecting satisfaction with the clarity, brevity, and flexibility of the platform. Barriers to implementation included technological and health literacy.
Conclusions
This study describes the successful development and testing of a dynamic consent platform that was well-accepted, with users recognizing its advantages over traditional methods of consent regarding flexibility, ease of communication, and participant satisfaction. This information may be useful to other researchers who plan to use dynamic consent in health care research.

Maximising the opportunities in lung cancer screening: uptake of consent to contact for research

Maximising the opportunities in lung cancer screening: uptake of consent to contact for research
T Patrick, SB Naidu, L Anandan, K Desai, V Marshman, P Robinson, S Patel, A Nair, R Thakrar, N Navani, JR Hurst, SM Janes, A Bhamani
BMJ Thorax, 3 November 2024
Abstract
Introduction
Low-Dose CT (LDCT) screening reduces lung cancer mortality. However, the benefits of Lung Cancer Screening (LCS) can be extended, for example, by offering individuals the opportunity to participate in research. We investigated the proportion and characteristics of individuals willing to be approached about research participation in our Targeted Lung Health Check programme.
Methods
In our programme, eligible individuals as assessed in an initial telephone questionnaire proceed to a face-to-face lung health check and LDCT. An additional question for eligible individuals (‘Are you happy to be approached by a member of our research team about participating in research?’) was introduced on 4th December 2023. All individuals subsequently completing a telephone questionnaire up to 20th May 2024 were included in this analysis.
Results
1708/3095 (55.2%) individuals consented to being approached about participating in research. Of these, 1068 (62.5%) were male, 746 (43.7%) were current smokers and 1380 (80.8%) were of white ethnicity. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis (table 1) showed that the factors associated with an increased likelihood of agreeing to research contact were: personal cancer history (aOR 1.39 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15–1.69)) and exposure to asbestos (aOR 1.63 (95%CI 1.34–1.99)). Being Asian (aOR 0.56 (95%CI 0.44–0.72)), having fewer years of formal education (finished education aged 15 or less aOR 0.44 (95%CI 0.33–0.60)) and a self-reported medical history of COPD (aOR 0.83 (95%CI 0.69–0.99) were associated with a reduced likelihood of consenting to research contact.
Discussion
Increasing public participation in research is important and part of the current NHS Long Term Plan.1 The majority of individuals undergoing LCS consented to be approached about research. However, groups already underrepresented in research were less likely to consent. Future studies should focus on increased diversity in research, potential benefits of which include increased public trust, promotion of fairness and improved generalisability of research findings.

Design and implementation of community consultation for research conducted under exception from informed consent regulations for the PreVent and the PreVent 2 trials: Changes over time and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Design and implementation of community consultation for research conducted under exception from informed consent regulations for the PreVent and the PreVent 2 trials: Changes over time and during the COVID-19 pandemic
Research article
Tom Gugel, Karen Adams, Madelon Baranoski, N David Yanez, Michael Kampp, Tesheia Johnson, Ani Aydin, Elaine C Fajardo, Emily Sharp, Aartee Potnis, Chanel Johnson, Miriam M Treggiari
Clinical Trials, 27 April 2024
Abstract
Introduction
Emergency clinical research has played an important role in improving outcomes for acutely ill patients. This is due in part to regulatory measures that allow Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC) trials. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires sponsor-investigators to engage in community consultation and public disclosure activities prior to initiating an Exception From Informed Consent trial. Various approaches to community consultation and public disclosure have been described and adapted to local contexts and Institutional Review Board (IRB) interpretations. The COVID-19 pandemic has precluded the ability to engage local communities through direct, in-person public venues, requiring research teams to find alternative ways to inform communities about emergency research.
Methods
The PreVent and PreVent 2 studies were two Exception From Informed Consent trials of emergency endotracheal intubation, conducted in one geographic location for the PreVent Study and in two geographic locations for the PreVent 2 Study. During the period of the two studies, there was a substantial shift in the methodological approach spanning across the periods before and after the pandemic from telephone, to in-person, to virtual settings.
Results
During the 10 years of implementation of Exception From Informed Consent activities for the two PreVent trials, there was overall favorable public support for the concept of Exception From Informed Consent trials and for the importance of emergency clinical research. Community concerns were few and also did not differ much by method of contact. Attendance was higher with the implementation of virtual technology to reach members of the community, and overall feedback was more positive compared with telephone contacts or in-person events. However, the proportion of survey responses received after completion of the remote, live event was substantially lower, with a greater proportion of respondents having higher education levels. This suggests less active engagement after completion of the synchronous activity and potentially higher selection bias among respondents. Importantly, we found that engagement with local community leaders was a key component to develop appropriate plans to connect with the public.
Conclusion
The PreVent experience illustrated operational advantages and disadvantages to community consultation conducted primarily by telephone, in-person events, or online activities. Approaches to enhance community acceptance included partnering with community leaders to optimize the communication strategies and trust building with the involvement of Institutional Review Board representatives during community meetings. Researchers might need to pivot from in-person planning to virtual techniques while maintaining the ability to engage with the public with two-way communication approaches. Due to less active engagement, and potential for selection bias in the responders, further research is needed to address the costs and benefits of virtual community consultation and public disclosure activities compared to in-person events.

Scoping review and thematic analysis of informed consent in humanitarian emergencies

Scoping review and thematic analysis of informed consent in humanitarian emergencies
Research
Benjamin Thomson, S. Mehta, C. Robinson
BMC Medical Ethics, 20 November 2024
Open access
Abstract
Background
To identify and to summarize challenges related to the informed consent process for research completed during humanitarian emergencies.
Methods
Using relevant search terms, a search of 5 databases was completed, without language, date, or study type restriction. Studies were screened for inclusion, with eligible studies being those that were relevant to the informed consent process for research studies completed in humanitarian emergencies. A Grounded Theory Analysis was completed to identify themes and subthemes.
Results
Review identified 30 relevant studies. We identified 11 challenges (lack of trust, therapeutic misconception, reduced capacity, security and privacy concerns, harmful research, power differential, literacy, language/local and cultural context, researcher burden and re-evaluation of ongoing trials) and 7 strategies (engage local research communities, use alternative to standard written consent process, modify traditional process of research ethics board review, dynamic consent, training of research staff, mandating transparency of commercial interests, and mandating reporting of informed consent process in all publications) to confront the challenges. These challenges and strategies were unique to the informed consent process in research conducted during humanitarian emergencies.
Conclusions
This scoping review identified an evidence-based guide for researchers and research ethics boards to perform ethical informed consent procedures in humanitarian emergencies.

Emergency Verbal Consent for Intrapartum Research: A Grounded Theory Study

Emergency Verbal Consent for Intrapartum Research: A Grounded Theory Study
Research Article
Carol Bedwell, Wendy Taylor, Caroline Cunningham, Andrew D. Weeks, Dame Tina Lavender
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 7 November 2024
Open Access
Abstract
Objective
To understand the experiences of women, birth partners and health professionals of verbal followed by retrospective written consent in a prospective cohort study of a device to manage postpartum haemorrhage (PPH).
Design
Grounded Theory.
Setting
Tertiary facility in North-West England, UK.
Sample
We used purposive and theoretical sampling to recruit 51 participants; 12 women, 12 birth partners, 16 obstetricians and 11 midwives.
Methods
Semi-structured interviews were conducted, using a topic guide for focus, until data saturation was achieved. Data were analysed using framework analysis technique.
Results
Most women wanted sufficient information to make a decision at the time of the event, rather than in advance, and preferred not to be overwhelmed with detail. A key factor in making the decision to participate was a positive and trusting relationship with the attending obstetrician. Obtaining consent for research in emergencies was viewed by obstetricians as requiring a different approach and more challenging than consent for standard procedures in an emergency.
Conclusions
This is one of the first studies to explore verbal followed by retrospective written consent processes with women, clinicians and observers. This was acceptable to all, however information needs to be appropriate, and those discussing consent require adequate training.

Enhancing patient understanding in obstetrics: The role of generative AI in simplifying informed consent for labor induction with oxytocin

Enhancing patient understanding in obstetrics: The role of generative AI in simplifying informed consent for labor induction with oxytocin
Amos Grünebaum, Joachim Dudenhausen, Frank A. Chervenak
Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 30 October 2024
Abstract
Informed consent is a cornerstone of ethical medical practice, particularly in obstetrics where procedures like labor induction carry significant risks and require clear patient understanding. Despite legal mandates for patient materials to be accessible, many consent forms remain too complex, resulting in patient confusion and dissatisfaction. This study explores the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) to simplify informed consent for labor induction with oxytocin, ensuring content is both medically accurate and comprehensible at an 8th-grade readability level. GAI-generated consent forms streamline the process, automatically tailoring content to meet readability standards while retaining essential details such as the procedure’s nature, risks, benefits, and alternatives. Through iterative prompts and expert refinement, the AI produces clear, patient-friendly language that bridges the gap between medical jargon and patient comprehension. Flesch Reading Ease scores show improved readability, meeting recommended levels for health literacy. GAI has the potential to revolutionize healthcare communication by enhancing patient understanding, promoting shared decision-making, and improving satisfaction with the consent process. However, human oversight remains critical to ensure that AI-generated content adheres to legal and ethical standards. This case study demonstrates that GAI can be an effective tool in creating accessible, standardized, yet personalized consent documents, contributing to better-informed patients and potentially reducing malpractice claims.

Evaluating AI-Generated informed consent documents in oral surgery: A comparative study of ChatGPT-4, Bard gemini advanced, and human-written consents

Evaluating AI-Generated informed consent documents in oral surgery: A comparative study of ChatGPT-4, Bard gemini advanced, and human-written consents
Luigi Angelo Vaira, Jerome R. Lechien, Antonino Maniaci, Giuseppe Tanda, Vincenzo Abbate, Fabiana Allevi, Antonio Arena, Giada Anna Beltramini, Michela Bergonzani, Alessandro Remigio Bolzoni, Salvatore Crimi, Andrea Frosolini, Guido Gabriele, Fabio Maglitto, Miguel Mayo-Yáñez, Ludovica Orrù, Marzia Petrocelli, Resi Pucci, Alberto Maria Saibene, Stefania Troise, Giacomo De Riu
Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, 26 October 2024
Open Access
Abstract
    This study evaluates the quality and readability of informed consent documents generated by AI platforms ChatGPT-4 and Bard Gemini Advanced compared to those written by a first-year oral surgery resident for common oral surgery procedures. The evaluation, conducted by 18 experienced oral and maxillofacial surgeons, assessed consents for accuracy, completeness, readability, and overall quality.

ChatGPT-4 consistently outperformed both Bard and human-written consents. ChatGPT-4 consents had a median accuracy score of 4 [IQR 4-4], compared to Bard’s 3 [IQR 3–4] and human’s 4 [IQR 3–4]. Completeness scores were higher for ChatGPT-4 (4 [IQR 4–5]) than Bard (3 [IQR 3–4]) and human (4 [IQR 3–4]). Readability was also superior for ChatGPT-4, with a median score of 4 [IQR 4–5] compared to Bard and human consents, both at 4 [IQR 4-4] and 4 [IQR 3–4], respectively. The Gunning Fog Index for ChatGPT-4 was 17.2 [IQR 16.5–18.2], better than Bard’s 23.1 [IQR 20.5–24.7] and the human consents’ 20 [IQR 19.2–20.9].

Overall, ChatGPT-4’s consents received the highest quality ratings, underscoring AI’s potential in enhancing patient communication and the informed consent process. The study suggests AI can reduce misinformation risks and improve patient understanding, but continuous evaluation, oversight, and patient feedback integration are crucial to ensure the effectiveness and appropriateness of AI-generated content in clinical practice.