Strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to intensive care studies: a qualitative study with researchers and patient–public involvement contributors

Strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to intensive care studies: a qualitative study with researchers and patient–public involvement contributors
Original Research
Katie Paddock, Kerry Woolfall, Frith, Megan Watkins, Carrol Gamble, Welters, Bridget Young
BMJ, 22 September 2021; 11(9)
Open Access
Abstract
Objective
Clinical trials and studies in intensive care units (ICUs) have complex consent processes and often encounter problems in recruiting patients. By interviewing research team members about the challenges in critical care research, we aimed to identify strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to ICU studies.
Methods
Semistructured interviews with UK-based researchers (N=17) and patient–public involvement (PPI) contributors (N=8) with experience of ICU studies. Analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews drew on thematic approaches.
Results
Seven themes were identified. Participants emphasised the need for substitute decision-making processes in critical care studies, yet some researchers reported that research ethics committees (RECs) were reluctant to approve such processes. Researchers spoke about the potential benefits of research without prior consent (RWPC) for studies with narrow recruitment windows but believed RECs would not approve them. Participants indicated that the activity of PPI contributors was limited in critical care studies, though researchers who had involved PPI contributors more extensively were clear that their input when designing consent processes was important. Researchers and PPI contributors pointed to resource and staffing limitations as barriers to patient recruitment. Researchers varied in whether and how they used professional consultees as substitute decision-makers, in whether they approached families by telephone to discuss research and in whether they disclosed details of research participation to bereaved relatives.
Conclusion
Critical care research could benefit from RECs having expertise in consent processes that are suited to this setting, better staffing at research sites, more extensive PPI and an evidence base on stakeholder perspectives on critical care research processes. Guidance on professional consultee processes, telephoning relatives to discuss research, RWPC and disclosure of research participation to bereaved relatives could help to harmonise practice in these areas and enhance recruitment and consent to critical care studies.

Reshaping the review of consent so we might improve participant choice

Reshaping the review of consent so we might improve participant choice
Research Article
Hugh Davies
Research Ethics, 15 September 2021
Open Access
Abstract
Consent is one necessary foundation for ethical research and it’s one of the research ethics committee’s major roles to ensure that the consent process meets acceptable standards. Although on Oxford ‘A’ REC (an NHS Research Ethics Committee based in the UK) we’ve been impressed by the thought and work put into this aspect of research ethics, we’ve continued to have concerns about the suitability and effectiveness of consent processes in supporting decision making, particularly for clinical trials. There’s poor understanding of what people want to help them decide; current processes don’t provide the best grounding for informed consent and there’s inadequate public involvement. We’ve also found a lack of proportionality with researchers failing to adapt consent procedures in proportion to the burdens and consequences of the study. As a result, people are often not best helped to make an informed choice when asked to join a research study. To address these concerns, we considered how we might improve this aspect of research ethics review. Recognising the central importance of the dialogue between the volunteer and researcher, we’ve drawn up a model or flowchart of what we deem good consent practice, proposing consent should be built around four simple steps:

Step 1: Introducing the study and the choices: helping the potential participants get an overview of the proposal and introducing the key issues.

Step 2: Explaining all the details of the study using the detailed Participant Information Sheet.

Step 3: After a gap, if necessary, reviewing and checking understanding.

Step 4: Reaching agreement and recording consent.

These steps, we believe, could help all involved and this article lays out ways we might improve participant choice while complying with accepted principles and current regulations.

Analysing and optimising Informed Consent in cooperation with ethics committees and medical researchers

Analysing and optimising Informed Consent in cooperation with ethics committees and medical researchers
Igor Matic, Gianni De Nardi, Felix Steiner
AILA Review, 9 September 2021; 34(1) pp 37–56
Open Access
Abstract
Medical researchers are ethically and legally required to inform participants and get written permission before enrolling them into a human research project (Informed Consent). Accordingly, information and consent represent a complex procedure, and the participant concerned “must receive comprehensible oral and written information” (Swiss legislation: Human Research Act (HRA) Art. 16). A triangle of stakeholders is involved in the procedure: ethics committees that review and approve research projects and Informed Consent (IC) documents, medical researchers who produce the documents and discuss enrolment with patients, and patients who have to be informed comprehensibly. From a linguistic point of view, the question arises as to which perceptions of comprehensibility form the basis of the IC process and how shared language can be established considering the complex relationship between these stakeholders. This contribution presents findings from two perspectives (ethics committees and researchers) while considering the needs of all three stakeholders. Firstly, the conceptualisation of comprehensibility among three ethic committees is presented, and steps toward harmonisation are outlined. Secondly, limitations of how researchers conduct oral IC information are analysed, and the measures that were implemented to improve patient information are discussed. A transdisciplinary approach is key in establishing these solutions because they do not stem from linguistic analysis alone but have been developed in close collaboration with members of ethics committees and medical researchers. Thus, the project shows how the expertise of applied linguistics in cooperation with practitioners can deliver an important impact in both academic analysis and optimisation of professional procedures.

Quantifying Withdrawal of Consent, Loss to Follow-Up, Early Drug Discontinuation, and Censoring in Oncology Trials

Quantifying Withdrawal of Consent, Loss to Follow-Up, Early Drug Discontinuation, and Censoring in Oncology Trials
Brooke E. Wilson, Michelle B. Nadler, Alexandra Desnoyers, Eitan Amir
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 3 September 2021
Open Access
Abstract
Background
Censoring due to early drug discontinuation (EDD) or withdrawal of consent or loss to follow-up (WCLFU) can result in postrandomization bias. In oncology, censoring rules vary with no defined standards. In this study, we sought to describe the planned handling and transparency of censoring data in oncology trials supporting FDA approval and to compare EDD and WCLFU in experimental and control arms.
Methods
We searched FDA archives to identify solid tumor drug approvals and their associated trials between 2015 and 2019, and extracted the planned handling and reporting of censored data. We compared the proportion of WCLFU and EDD between the experimental and control arms by using generalized estimating equations, and performed logistic regression to identify trial characteristics associated with WCLFU occurring more frequently in the control group.
Results
Censoring rules were defined adequately in 48 (59%) of 81 included studies. Only 14 (17%) reported proportions of censored participants clearly. The proportion of WCLFU was higher in the control group than in the experimental group (mean, 3.9% vs 2.5%; β-coefficient, −2.2; 95% CI, −3.1 to −1.3; P<.001). EDD was numerically higher in the experimental arm in 61% of studies, but there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of EDD between the experimental and control groups (mean, 21.6% vs 19.9%, respectively; β-coefficient, 0.27; 95% CI, −0.32 to 0.87; P=.37). The proportion of EDD due to adverse effects (AEs) was higher in the experimental group (mean, 13.2% vs 8.5%; β-coefficient, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.57–2.45; P=.002). WCLFU was higher in the control group in studies with an active control group (odds ratio [OR], 10.1; P<.001) and in open label studies (OR, 3.00; P=.08).
Conclusions
There are significant differences in WCLFU and EDD for AEs between the experimental and control arms in oncology trials. This may introduce postrandomization bias. Trials should improve the reporting and handling of censored data so that clinicians and patients are fully informed regarding the expected benefits of a treatment.

Exemption from informed consent: When it is possible in investigational product and drug trials?

Exemption from informed consent: When it is possible in investigational product and drug trials?
Review Article
Swati Verma
Saudi Journal of Anesthesia, 2 September 2021; 15(4) pp 428-430
Abstract
One of the most important ethical step in conducting investigational product trials or drug trials is obtaining informed consent from the participants. Although consent from the participants regarding participation is of prime importance but is not always practical or feasible. There may be several instances where it is practically impossible to obtain informed consent, whereas in some cases, obtaining informed consent from the trial participants adversely affects the quality and validity of the study data. Obtaining informed consent is a highly complex and technical process if the participants are not literate or suffering from a terminal illness, Also in some instances obtaining informed consent regarding the washout of prior prescribed medicine which may affect the trial outcomes. Although many guidelines exist for obtaining proper informed consent while very scarce literature exists on the instances where it can be waived off. Therefore, this brief narrative review aims to provide insight into currently available knowledge about when to obtain informed consent during testing of investigational product trials and drug trials and other possible scenarios where it can be waived off considering the effects of the washout period.

Telephone consent: optimizing the recruitment of research participants

Telephone consent: optimizing the recruitment of research participants
Research
Lívia Loamí Ruyz Jorge de Paula, Mateus Frederico de Paula, Levon Badiglian-Filho
Revista Bioética, April-June 2021; 29(2)
Abstract
Informed consent aims to protect the autonomy of potential research participants, providing the information necessary to make the right decision. This study reports the experience of collecting the informed consent via telephone from individuals. Telephone contact was successfully achieved for more than 90% of the participants; 1.16% understood the survey, but did not accept to participate; and 0.70% refused to provide telephone consent and required a consent form by mail. Women from all regions of Brazil participated and most had some procedure in the hospital at least 62 days after the date of the call. The results show that telephone consent can be an alternative method of recruiting patients given the high rate of acceptance of the participants and time gains in data collection.

The Challenges of Multiculturalism on Informed Consent in Clinical Research

The Challenges of Multiculturalism on Informed Consent in Clinical Research
Joseph Tham
Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Bioethica, 2021; 65 pp 174-175
Abstract
The UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights held its 6th international workshop to discuss the issues of Informed Consent and Clinical Research. Being part of the i-Consent consortium, a project funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, the workshop focused on the multicultural and interdisciplinary dimension of ethical requirements of informed consent applied to translational/clinical research. Bioethical experts from Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism discussed the key challenges and the requirements of informed consent in clinical research. Some of the ethical gaps, barriers and challenges present in obtaining informed consent from patients/subjects in different, challenging cultural contexts were identified, as they represent minority groups and vulnerable populations. One of the findings is that many religious traditions do not accept the Western idealization of the autonomous self and prefer a more relational or communitarian understanding of doctorpatient/researcher-subject relationship. Western medicine and its current gold standard of informed consent that is practiced globally may not adequately address the theoretical skepticism towards the underlying principle of autonomy by different religions and cultures. This tension is becoming more pronounced with migrant and minority groups when they are asked to participate in clinical research as well as doing research in different parts of the world. A shift from individual to relational autonomy may offer a more nuanced improvement of the readability, design and obtaining process of consent forms. This shift will take into consideration the conscious and unconscious cultural biases of the investigators; multicultural and religious variables of the subjects’ understanding; cross-cultural vision of vulnerability, knowledge, communication and empathy; the need for individualized approaches to promote health protective behaviors; and framing questions for a multi-layered informed consent which includes East/West – North/South perspectives.

Are investigators’ access to trial data and rights to publish restricted and are potential trial participants informed about this? A comparison of trial protocols and informed consent materials

Are investigators’ access to trial data and rights to publish restricted and are potential trial participants informed about this? A comparison of trial protocols and informed consent materials
Research Article
Asger S. Paludan-Müller, Michelle C. Ogden, Mikkel Marquardsen, Karsten J. Jørgensen, Peter C. Gøtzsche
BMC Medical Ethics, 28 August 2021; 22(115)
Open Access
Abstract
Objectives
To determine to which degree industry partners in randomised clinical trials own the data and can constrain publication rights of academic investigators.
Methods
Cohort study of trial protocols, publication agreements and other documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests, for a sample of 42 trials with industry involvement approved by ethics committees in Denmark. The main outcome measures used were: proportion of trials where data was owned by the industry partner, where the investigators right to publish were constrained and if this was mentioned in informed consent documents, and where the industry partner could review data while the trial was ongoing and stop the trial early.
Results
The industry partner owned all data in 20 trials (48%) and in 16 trials (38%) it was unclear. Publication constraints were described for 30 trials (71%) and this was not communicated to trial participants in informed consent documents in any of the trials. In eight trials (19%) the industry partner could review data during the trial, for 20 trials (48%) it was unclear. The industry partner could stop the trial early without any specific reason in 23 trials (55%).
Conclusions
Publication constraints are common, and data is often owned by industry partners. This is rarely communicated to trial participants. Such constraints might contribute to problems with selective outcome reporting. Patients should be fully informed about these aspects of trial conduct.

An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff

An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff
Research
Lydia O’ Sullivan, Laura Feeney, Rachel K. Crowley, Prasanth Sukumar, Eilish McAuliffe, Peter Doran
Trials, 18 August 2021; 22(544)
Open Access
Abstract
Background
The process of informed consent for enrolment to a clinical research study can be complex for both participants and research staff. Challenges include respecting the potential participant’s autonomy and information needs while simultaneously providing adequate information to enable an informed decision. Qualitative research with small sample sizes has added to our understanding of these challenges. However, there is value in garnering the perspectives of research participants and staff across larger samples to explore the impact of contextual factors (time spent, the timing of the discussion and the setting), on the informed consent process.
Methods
Research staff and research participants from Ireland and the UK were invited to complete an anonymous survey by post or online (research participants) and online (research staff). The surveys aimed to quantify the perceptions of research participants and staff regarding some contextual factors about the process of informed consent. The survey, which contained 14 and 16 multiple choice questions for research participants and staff respectively, was analysed using descriptive statistics. Both surveys included one optional, open-ended question, which were analysed thematically.
Results
Research participants (169) and research staff (115) completed the survey. Research participants were predominantly positive about the informed consent process but highlighted the importance of having sufficient time and the value of providing follow-up once the study concludes, e.g. providing results to participants. Most staff (74.4%) staff reported that they felt very confident or confident facilitating informed consent discussions, but 63% felt information leaflets were too long and/or complicated, 56% were concerned about whether participants had understood complex information and 40% felt that time constraints were a barrier. A dominant theme from the open-ended responses to the staff survey was the importance of adequate time and resources.
Conclusions
Research participants in this study were overwhelmingly positive about their experience of the informed consent process. However, research staff expressed concern about how much participants have understood and studies of patient comprehension of research study information would seem to confirm these fears. This study highlights the importance of allocating adequate time to informed consent discussions, and research staff could consider using Teach Back techniques.

Rethinking informed consent in the age of behavioural sciences and relational autonomy

Rethinking informed consent in the age of behavioural sciences and relational autonomy
Original Article
Sylvestre, N. Orr Gaucher, T. Perez, O. Drouin
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, December 2021; 19
Summary
Background and objectives
Informed consent is one of the cornerstones of modern medicine, clinical ethics, and biomedical research. However, emerging evidence in behavioural sciences and relational accounts of autonomy in clinical ethics have highlighted biases and constructs that may challenge informed consent. In this paper, we examine these findings and explore ways forward to ensure the integrity of informed medical decision making.
Method
Cognitive biases affecting patients and clinicians were reviewed in relation to their influence on the cognitive abilities traditionally considered fundamental to informed decision making required for consent: understanding, appreciation and reasoning. The way these findings resonate with criticisms advanced by proponents of relational autonomy was explored.
Results
For patients and clinicians alike, perceiving risks, interpreting probabilities and projecting oneself into the future are influenced by many biases, including loss aversion, underweighting of small probabilities and optimistic bias. These biases directly impact informed decision making by affecting the cognitive processes of understanding, appreciation, and reasoning. In clinical ethics, growing interest in relational accounts of autonomy have highlighted how people are socially embedded, and how patients’ identities and preferences are forged through important social and relational influences. In all, evidence from the behavioural sciences offers support for relational accounts of autonomy and ways forward to improve current practices of informed consent.
Conclusion
Integrating the empirical evidence from behavioural sciences and theoretical elements of relational autonomy compels us to adapt current practices of informed consent. To ensure the integrity of informed medical decision making, the process must further consider the inherent contextual and relational elements that shape how persons consider risks and make decisions.