Cargando…

Making a decision about trial participation: the feasibility of measuring deliberation during the informed consent process for clinical trials

BACKGROUND: Informed consent of trial participants is both an ethical and a legal requirement. When facing a decision about trial participation, potential participants are provided with information about the trial and have the opportunity to have any questions answered before their degree of ‘inform...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gillies, Katie, Elwyn, Glyn, Cook, Jonathan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4131044/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25073967
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-307
_version_ 1782330397448732672
author Gillies, Katie
Elwyn, Glyn
Cook, Jonathan
author_facet Gillies, Katie
Elwyn, Glyn
Cook, Jonathan
author_sort Gillies, Katie
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Informed consent of trial participants is both an ethical and a legal requirement. When facing a decision about trial participation, potential participants are provided with information about the trial and have the opportunity to have any questions answered before their degree of ‘informed-ness’ is assessed, usually subjectively, and before they are asked to sign a consent form. Currently, standardised methods for assessing informed consent have tended to be focused on aspects of understanding and associated outcomes, rather than on the process of consent and the steps associated with decision-making. METHODS: Potential trial participants who were approached regarding participation in one of three randomised controlled trials were asked to complete a short questionnaire to measure their deliberation about trial participation. A total of 136 participants completed the 10-item questionnaire (DelibeRATE) before they made an explicit decision about trial participation (defined as signing the clinical trial consent form). Overall DelibeRATE scores were compared and investigated for differences between trial consenters and refusers. RESULTS: No differences in overall DelibeRATE scores were identified. In addition, there was no significant difference between overall score and the decision to participate, or not, in the parent trial. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to prospectively measure the deliberation stage of the informed consent decision-making process of potential trial participants across different conditions and clinical areas. Although there were no differences detected in overall scores or scores of trial consenters and refusers, we did identify some interesting findings. These findings should be taken into consideration by those designing trials and others interested in developing and implementing measures of potential trial participants decision making during the informed consent process for research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register ISRCTN60695184 (date of registration: 13 May 2009), ISRCTN80061723 (date of registration: 8 March 2010), ISRCTN69423238 (date of registration: 18 November 2010)
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4131044
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41310442014-08-15 Making a decision about trial participation: the feasibility of measuring deliberation during the informed consent process for clinical trials Gillies, Katie Elwyn, Glyn Cook, Jonathan Trials Methodology BACKGROUND: Informed consent of trial participants is both an ethical and a legal requirement. When facing a decision about trial participation, potential participants are provided with information about the trial and have the opportunity to have any questions answered before their degree of ‘informed-ness’ is assessed, usually subjectively, and before they are asked to sign a consent form. Currently, standardised methods for assessing informed consent have tended to be focused on aspects of understanding and associated outcomes, rather than on the process of consent and the steps associated with decision-making. METHODS: Potential trial participants who were approached regarding participation in one of three randomised controlled trials were asked to complete a short questionnaire to measure their deliberation about trial participation. A total of 136 participants completed the 10-item questionnaire (DelibeRATE) before they made an explicit decision about trial participation (defined as signing the clinical trial consent form). Overall DelibeRATE scores were compared and investigated for differences between trial consenters and refusers. RESULTS: No differences in overall DelibeRATE scores were identified. In addition, there was no significant difference between overall score and the decision to participate, or not, in the parent trial. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to prospectively measure the deliberation stage of the informed consent decision-making process of potential trial participants across different conditions and clinical areas. Although there were no differences detected in overall scores or scores of trial consenters and refusers, we did identify some interesting findings. These findings should be taken into consideration by those designing trials and others interested in developing and implementing measures of potential trial participants decision making during the informed consent process for research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register ISRCTN60695184 (date of registration: 13 May 2009), ISRCTN80061723 (date of registration: 8 March 2010), ISRCTN69423238 (date of registration: 18 November 2010) BioMed Central 2014-07-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4131044/ /pubmed/25073967 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-307 Text en © Gillies et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Methodology
Gillies, Katie
Elwyn, Glyn
Cook, Jonathan
Making a decision about trial participation: the feasibility of measuring deliberation during the informed consent process for clinical trials
title Making a decision about trial participation: the feasibility of measuring deliberation during the informed consent process for clinical trials
title_full Making a decision about trial participation: the feasibility of measuring deliberation during the informed consent process for clinical trials
title_fullStr Making a decision about trial participation: the feasibility of measuring deliberation during the informed consent process for clinical trials
title_full_unstemmed Making a decision about trial participation: the feasibility of measuring deliberation during the informed consent process for clinical trials
title_short Making a decision about trial participation: the feasibility of measuring deliberation during the informed consent process for clinical trials
title_sort making a decision about trial participation: the feasibility of measuring deliberation during the informed consent process for clinical trials
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4131044/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25073967
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-307
work_keys_str_mv AT gillieskatie makingadecisionabouttrialparticipationthefeasibilityofmeasuringdeliberationduringtheinformedconsentprocessforclinicaltrials
AT elwynglyn makingadecisionabouttrialparticipationthefeasibilityofmeasuringdeliberationduringtheinformedconsentprocessforclinicaltrials
AT cookjonathan makingadecisionabouttrialparticipationthefeasibilityofmeasuringdeliberationduringtheinformedconsentprocessforclinicaltrials