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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |