Simulation Training to Improve Informed Consent and Pharmacokinetic/ Pharmacodynamic Sampling in Pediatric Trials

Simulation Training to Improve Informed Consent and Pharmacokinetic/ Pharmacodynamic Sampling in Pediatric Trials
Bjoern B. Burckhardt, Agnes Maria Ciplea, Anna Laven, László Ablonczy, Ingrid Klingmann, Stephanie Läer, Karl Kleine, Michiel Dalinghaus, Milan Ðukic, Johannes M. P. J. Breur, Marijke van der Meulen, Vanessa Swoboda, Holger Schwender, Florian B. Lagler
Frontiers of Pharmacology, December 2020; 11
Open Access
Abstract
Background
Paediatric trials to add missing data for evidence-based pharmacotherapy are still scarce. A tailored training concept appears to be a promising tool to cope with critical and complex situations before enrolling the very first patient and subsequently to ensure high-quality study conduct. The aim was to facilitate study success by optimizing the preparedness of the study staff shift.
Method
An interdisciplinary faculty developed a simulation training focusing on the communication within the informed consent procedure and the conduct of the complex pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) sampling within a simulation facility. Scenarios were video-debriefed by an audio-video system and manikins with artificial blood simulating patients were used. The training was evaluated by participants’ self-assessment before and during trial recruitment.
Results
The simulation training identified different optimization potentials for improved informed consent process and study conduct. It facilitated the reduction of avoidable errors, especially in the early phase of a clinical study. The knowledge gained through the intervention was used to train the study teams, improve the team composition and optimize the on-ward setting for the FP-7 funded “LENA” project (grant agreement no. 602295). Selfperceived ability to communicate core elements of the trial as well as its correct performance of sample preparation increased significantly (mean, 95% CI, p ≤ 0.0001) from 3 (2.5–3.5) to four points (4.0–4.5), and from 2 (1.5–2.5) to five points (4.0–5.0).
Conclusion
An innovative training concept to optimize the informed consent process and study conduct was successfully developed and enabled high-quality conduct of the pediatric trials as of the very first patient visit.

Recruitment and Consent in an observational study

Recruitment and Consent in an observational study
M Goodwin, W Whittaker, T Walsh, R Emsley, M Sutton, M Tickle
Community Dental Health, 30 November 2020; 37(4) pp 287-292
Abstract
Objective
The study sought to explore the consent rate and associated potential bias across a cohort in a large longitudinal population based study.
Research design
Data were taken from a study designed to examine the effects of the reintroduction of community water fluoridation on children’s oral health over a five-year period. Children were recruited from a fluoridated and non-fluoridated area in Cumbria, referred to as Group 1 and Group 2.
Results
Data were available for 3138 individuals. The consent rate was 12.91 percentage points lower in Group 2 than Group 1 (95% CI -16.27 to -9.56, p<0.001). The population in Group 2 was more deprived than Group 1 before consent was taken. Consent was not associated with deprivation in either group.
Conclusion
The cohort appeared to be unaffected by IMD-related non-consent. However there was a difference in consent rate between the two groups. With the population in Group 1 being more deprived than Group 2, it will be important to incorporate these differences into the analysis at the end of this longitudinal study.

Informed consent for neonatal trials: practical points to consider and a check list

Informed consent for neonatal trials: practical points to consider and a check list
Beate Aurich, Eric Vermeulen, Valéry Elie, Mariette H E Driessens, Christine Kubiak, Donato Bonifazi, Evelyne Jacqz-Aigrain
BMJ Pediatrics, 29 November 2020
Open Access
Abstract
Obtaining informed consent from parents of critically ill neonates can be challenging. The parental decision making process is influenced by the severity of the child’s condition, the benefit–risk balance, their emotional state and the quality of the relationship with the clinical team. Independent of local legislation, parents may prefer that consent is sought from both. Misconceptions about the absence of risks or unrealistic expectations about benefits should be openly addressed to avoid misunderstandings which may harm the relationship with the clinical team. Continuous consent can be sought where it is unclear whether the free choice of parental consent has been compromised. Obtaining informed consent is a dynamic process building on trusting relationships. It should include open and honest discussions about benefits and risks. Investigators may benefit from training in effective communication. Finally, involving parents in neonatal research including the development of the informed consent form and the process of obtaining consent should be considered standard practice.

Do National and International Ethics Documents Accord With the Consent Substitute Model for Emergency Research?

Do National and International Ethics Documents Accord With the Consent Substitute Model for Emergency Research?
Adèle Langlois, Stephanie Armstrong, Aloysius Niroshan Siriwardena
Academic Emergency Medicine, 28 November 2020
Open Access
Abstract
In 2010 Largent, Wendler, and Emanuel proposed the “consent substitute model” for emergency research with incapacitated participants. The model provides a means to enroll participants in emergency research without consent, if five conditions are met: 1) the research addresses the patients’ urgent medical needs, 2) the risk–benefit ratio is favorable, 3) there are no known conflicts with patients’ values or interests, 4) cumulative net risk is minimal, and 5) consent is given as soon as possible. We review national and international ethics laws, regulations, and guidelines to determine 1) whether they accord with the consent substitute model’s five conditions and 2) the level of congruence across these documents. We find that only one document meets all five conditions and that there is significant disparity among the documents, particularly between national and international ones. These differences may have stymied international collaboration in emergency research. We recommend that the two international documents used most, the International Council for Harmonization’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice and the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki, are revised to include more specific provisions on emergency medical research.

Cultural variation in informed consent for clinical research participation [BOOK]

Cultural variation in informed consent for clinical research participation [BOOK]
David Resnik, Julia Hecking
Routledge; Handbook of Ethnography in Healthcare Research, 2020
Abstract
Informed consent is one of the cornerstones of ethical research with human subjects. Although most people living in Western countries are familiar with the concept of informed consent, in some parts of the world the idea that an individual has the right to give his or her informed consent for medical care or research participation is a foreign notion. In this chapter, we examine the ethical and legal basis of informed consent and review the published research on cultural variation in informed consent for clinical research participation. Our analysis of this literature identifies four different ways that culture may affect the informed consent process, including: 1) consent of community leaders may be sought prior to obtaining the individual consent of community members; 2) investigators may alter consent documents to better reflect the language and concepts used in the culture; 3) the consent procedure may be modified to reinforce the concept of opt-in participation and give participants more time to discuss their potential enrollment with others; and 4) instead of obtaining informed consent through written documents, researchers may use record consent verbally or through a fingerprint in cultures with an oral history or high rates of illiteracy.

Informed consent for genetic testing in hematology

Informed consent for genetic testing in hematology
Jonathan M. Marron
Hematology, 4 December 2020; 1 pp 213–218
Open Access
Abstract
Informed consent is a fundamental component of modern health care. All competent adult patients have the legal and ethical authority to accept (consent) or refuse (dissent) recommended health-related interventions. Various models of informed consent have been described, and herein I introduce a model that divides informed consent into 7 distinct elements: competence, voluntariness, disclosure, recommendation, understanding, decision, and authorization. Genetic testing, which is rapidly becoming a common feature of both clinical care and research in hematology, adds additional layers of complexity to each of these consent elements. Using the example case of Mr. Smith, a man with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia whose clinicians offer him genetic testing of the leukemia through a clinical trial, I highlight the challenges and controversies of informed consent for genetic testing, focusing on each consent element as it pertains to genetic testing in such a setting. Ultimately, given the growing importance of genetic testing for hematologic disorders, clinicians, and researchers in hematology should be facile at participating in all aspects of informed consent for genetic testing.

Incorporating Biobank Consent into a Healthcare Setting: Challenges for Patient Understanding

Incorporating Biobank Consent into a Healthcare Setting: Challenges for Patient Understanding
Research Article
J. Kasperbauer, Karen K. Schmidt, Ariane Thomas, Susan M. Perkins, Peter H. Schwartz
American Journal of Bioethics, 4 December 2020
Abstract
Background
Biobank participants often do not understand much of the information they are provided as part of the informed consent process, despite numerous attempts at simplifying consent forms and improving their readability. We report the first assessment of biobank enrollees’ comprehension under an “integrated consent” process, where patients were asked to enroll in a research biobank as part of their normal healthcare experience. A number of healthcare systems have implemented similar integrated consent processes for biobanking, but it is unknown how much patients understand after enrolling under these conditions.
Methods
We recruited patients who enrolled in a biobank while in a healthcare setting when receiving ordinary care. We assessed knowledge of consent materials using 11 true/false questions drawn from a well-known biobank knowledge test. After reviewing the results from 114 participants, we revised the consent form and repeated the knowledge assessment with 144 different participants.
Results
Participants scored poorly on the knowledge test in both rounds, with no significant differences in overall scores or individual items between the rounds. In Phase 1, participants answered 53% of the questions correctly, 25% incorrectly, and 22% “I don’t know.” In Phase 2, participants answered 53% of questions correctly, 24% incorrectly, and 23% “I don’t know.” Participants scored particularly poorly on questions about data sharing and accessing medical records.
Conclusions
Enrollees under an integrated consent model had significant misunderstandings that persisted despite an attempt to improve information specifically about those topics in a consent form. These results raise challenges for current approaches that attribute misunderstanding to overly complex consent forms. They also suggest that the pressures of the clinic may compound other problems with patient understanding of biobank consent. As health systems increasingly blend research and care, they may need to rethink their approach to educating patients about participation in a biobank.

A graphic elicitation technique to represent patient rights

A graphic elicitation technique to represent patient rights
Methodology
Catherine R. McGowan, Nora Hellman, Louisa Baxter, Sonali Chakma, Samchun Nahar, Ahasan Ud Daula, Kelly Rowe, Josie Gilday, Patricia Kingori, Rachel Pounds, Rachael Cummings
Conflict and Health, 14 December 2020; 14(86)
Open Access
Abstract
Background
A patient charter is an explicit declaration of the rights of patients within a particular health care setting. In early 2020 the Save the Children Emergency Health Unit deployed to Cox’s Bazar Bangladesh to support the establishment of a severe acute respiratory infection isolation and treatment centre as part of the COVID-19 response. We developed a charter of patient rights and had it translated into Bangla and Burmese; however, the charter remained inaccessible to Rohingya and members of the host community with low literacy.
Methods
To both visualise and contextualise the patient charter we undertook a graphic elicitation method involving both the Rohingya and host communities. We carried out two focus group discussions during which we discussed the charter and agreed how best to illustrate the individual rights contained therein.
Results
Logistical constraints and infection prevention and control procedures limited our ability to follow up with the original focus group participants and to engage in back-translation as we had planned; however, we were able to elicit rich descriptions of each right. Reflecting on our method we were able to identify several key learnings relating to: 1) our technique for eliciting feedback on the charter verbatim versus a broader discussion of concepts referenced within each right, 2) our decision to include both men and women in the same focus group, 3) our decision to ask focus group participants to describe specific features of each illustration and how this benefited the inclusivity of our illustrations, and 4) the potential of the focus groups to act as a means to introduce the charter to communities.
Conclusions
Though executing our method was operationally challenging we were able to create culturally appropriate illustrations to accompany our patient charter. In contexts of limited literacy it is possible to enable access to critical clinical governance and accountability tools.

Transparency and Accountability of Pediatric Trials: Should Consent Rate Reporting Be Mandatory?

Transparency and Accountability of Pediatric Trials: Should Consent Rate Reporting Be Mandatory?
Editorial
Ana Marušić, Ivan Buljan
The Journal of Pediatrics, 1 December 2020; 227 pp 9-10
Excerpt
The study of Lonhart et al in this volume of The Journal sends a warning about reporting consent rates in pediatric trials.1 They analyzed 696 articles from MEDLINE presenting pediatric randomized controlled trials and showed that 60% (n = 418) of them did not report rates of consent for trial participants, or the consent rate was unclear. Among 278 trials that did report the number of consenting subjects, the average consent rate was high (83%), but for 26% of these trials, the average consent rate was less than 70%, which may introduce a bias related to the representativeness of the target population. Overall, the consent rates were greater for trials of vaccination interventions (90%) in comparison with behavioral interventions (79%), and for industry-funded trials (86%) in comparison with government-funded trials (79%). This study raises important questions related to the ethics of pediatric trials and to the quality and validity of evidence from pediatric trials…

Consent Rates Reported in Published Pediatric Randomized Controlled Trials

Consent Rates Reported in Published Pediatric Randomized Controlled Trials
Julia A. Lonhart, Ashley R. Edwards, Swati Agarwal, Brian P. Lucas, Alan R. Schroeder
The Journal of Pediatrics, 1 December 2020; 227 pp 281-287
Abstract
Objective
To determine the average reported consent rate for published pediatric randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and whether this rate varies by trial characteristics.
Study design
A review of pediatric RCTs published in Medline in 2009, 2010, or 2015 was performed. Secondary analyses of prior trials, trials including adults, trials not requiring consent, or trials with missing or unclear consent data were excluded. Consent rate was defined as the number of patients enrolled divided by number of eligible patients where families were approached. Random effects meta-regression was conducted to determine the weighted average consent rate.
Results
Of 2347 trials identified, 1651 were excluded. An additional 418 of 696 (60%) were excluded because the consent rate was missing or unclear. The average consent rate for 278 included RCTs was 82.6% (95% CI, 80.3%-84.8%) and was higher for vaccination compared with behavioral trials and for industry-funded compared with National Institutes of Health-funded or other government-funded trials. The average consent rate was <70% for 26% of included trials. Of these trials, US trials (28/77 [36.4%]) had a higher probability of a consent rate of <70% than non-US studies (35/64 [21.3%]) and multinational (9/37 [24.3%]) studies. There was slight variation by funding category.
Conclusions
Although the average consent rate for published trials was reasonably high, approximately one-quarter of trials had consent rates of <70%. Consent rates reporting has improved over time, but remains suboptimal. Our findings should assist with the planning of future pediatric RCTs, although consent data from unpublished trials are also needed.