Cargando…

A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial

BACKGROUND: Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of research informed consent is a high priority. Some express concern about longer, more complex, written consent forms creating barriers to participant understanding. A recent meta-analysis concluded that randomized comparisons were needed. MET...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grady, Christine, Touloumi, Giota, Walker, A. Sarah, Smolskis, Mary, Sharma, Shweta, Babiker, Abdel G., Pantazis, Nikos, Tavel, Jorge, Florence, Eric, Sanchez, Adriana, Hudson, Fleur, Papadopoulos, Antonios, Emanuel, Ezekiel, Clewett, Megan, Munroe, David, Denning, Eileen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5406127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28445471
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172607
_version_ 1783231912248082432
author Grady, Christine
Touloumi, Giota
Walker, A. Sarah
Smolskis, Mary
Sharma, Shweta
Babiker, Abdel G.
Pantazis, Nikos
Tavel, Jorge
Florence, Eric
Sanchez, Adriana
Hudson, Fleur
Papadopoulos, Antonios
Emanuel, Ezekiel
Clewett, Megan
Munroe, David
Denning, Eileen
author_facet Grady, Christine
Touloumi, Giota
Walker, A. Sarah
Smolskis, Mary
Sharma, Shweta
Babiker, Abdel G.
Pantazis, Nikos
Tavel, Jorge
Florence, Eric
Sanchez, Adriana
Hudson, Fleur
Papadopoulos, Antonios
Emanuel, Ezekiel
Clewett, Megan
Munroe, David
Denning, Eileen
author_sort Grady, Christine
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of research informed consent is a high priority. Some express concern about longer, more complex, written consent forms creating barriers to participant understanding. A recent meta-analysis concluded that randomized comparisons were needed. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized non-inferiority comparison of a standard versus concise consent form within a multinational trial studying the timing of starting antiretroviral therapy in HIV+ adults (START). Interested sites were randomized to standard or concise consent forms for all individuals signing START consent. Participants completed a survey measuring comprehension of study information and satisfaction with the consent process. Site personnel reported usual site consent practices. The primary outcome was comprehension of the purpose of randomization (pre-specified 7.5% non-inferiority margin). RESULTS: 77 sites (2429 participants) were randomly allocated to use standard consent and 77 sites (2000 participants) concise consent, for an evaluable cohort of 4229. Site and participant characteristics were similar for the two groups. The concise consent was non-inferior to the standard consent on comprehension of randomization (80.2% versus 82%, site adjusted difference: 0.75% (95% CI -3.8%, +5.2%)); and the two groups did not differ significantly on total comprehension score, satisfaction, or voluntariness (p>0.1). Certain independent factors, such as education, influenced comprehension and satisfaction but not differences between consent groups. CONCLUSIONS: An easier to read, more concise consent form neither hindered nor improved comprehension of study information nor satisfaction with the consent process among a large number of participants. This supports continued efforts to make consent forms more efficient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Informed consent substudy was registered as part of START study in clinicaltrials.gov #NCT00867048, and EudraCT # 2008-006439-12
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5406127
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54061272017-05-14 A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial Grady, Christine Touloumi, Giota Walker, A. Sarah Smolskis, Mary Sharma, Shweta Babiker, Abdel G. Pantazis, Nikos Tavel, Jorge Florence, Eric Sanchez, Adriana Hudson, Fleur Papadopoulos, Antonios Emanuel, Ezekiel Clewett, Megan Munroe, David Denning, Eileen PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of research informed consent is a high priority. Some express concern about longer, more complex, written consent forms creating barriers to participant understanding. A recent meta-analysis concluded that randomized comparisons were needed. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized non-inferiority comparison of a standard versus concise consent form within a multinational trial studying the timing of starting antiretroviral therapy in HIV+ adults (START). Interested sites were randomized to standard or concise consent forms for all individuals signing START consent. Participants completed a survey measuring comprehension of study information and satisfaction with the consent process. Site personnel reported usual site consent practices. The primary outcome was comprehension of the purpose of randomization (pre-specified 7.5% non-inferiority margin). RESULTS: 77 sites (2429 participants) were randomly allocated to use standard consent and 77 sites (2000 participants) concise consent, for an evaluable cohort of 4229. Site and participant characteristics were similar for the two groups. The concise consent was non-inferior to the standard consent on comprehension of randomization (80.2% versus 82%, site adjusted difference: 0.75% (95% CI -3.8%, +5.2%)); and the two groups did not differ significantly on total comprehension score, satisfaction, or voluntariness (p>0.1). Certain independent factors, such as education, influenced comprehension and satisfaction but not differences between consent groups. CONCLUSIONS: An easier to read, more concise consent form neither hindered nor improved comprehension of study information nor satisfaction with the consent process among a large number of participants. This supports continued efforts to make consent forms more efficient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Informed consent substudy was registered as part of START study in clinicaltrials.gov #NCT00867048, and EudraCT # 2008-006439-12 Public Library of Science 2017-04-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5406127/ /pubmed/28445471 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172607 Text en https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) public domain dedication.
spellingShingle Research Article
Grady, Christine
Touloumi, Giota
Walker, A. Sarah
Smolskis, Mary
Sharma, Shweta
Babiker, Abdel G.
Pantazis, Nikos
Tavel, Jorge
Florence, Eric
Sanchez, Adriana
Hudson, Fleur
Papadopoulos, Antonios
Emanuel, Ezekiel
Clewett, Megan
Munroe, David
Denning, Eileen
A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial
title A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial
title_full A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial
title_fullStr A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial
title_full_unstemmed A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial
title_short A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial
title_sort randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the start trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5406127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28445471
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172607
work_keys_str_mv AT gradychristine arandomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT touloumigiota arandomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT walkerasarah arandomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT smolskismary arandomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT sharmashweta arandomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT babikerabdelg arandomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT pantazisnikos arandomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT taveljorge arandomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT florenceeric arandomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT sanchezadriana arandomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT hudsonfleur arandomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT papadopoulosantonios arandomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT emanuelezekiel arandomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT clewettmegan arandomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT munroedavid arandomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT denningeileen arandomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT arandomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT gradychristine randomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT touloumigiota randomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT walkerasarah randomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT smolskismary randomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT sharmashweta randomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT babikerabdelg randomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT pantazisnikos randomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT taveljorge randomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT florenceeric randomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT sanchezadriana randomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT hudsonfleur randomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT papadopoulosantonios randomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT emanuelezekiel randomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT clewettmegan randomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT munroedavid randomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT denningeileen randomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial
AT randomizedtrialcomparingconciseandstandardconsentformsinthestarttrial