Cargando…

Public preferences on written informed consent for low‐risk pragmatic clinical trials in Spain

AIMS: Pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) collect data that have the potential to improve medical care significantly. However, these trials may be undermined by the requirement to obtain written informed consent, which can decrease accrual and increase selection bias. Recent data suggest th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dal‐Ré, Rafael, Carcas, Antonio J., Carné, Xavier, Wendler, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5582372/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28419518
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13305
_version_ 1783261177570131968
author Dal‐Ré, Rafael
Carcas, Antonio J.
Carné, Xavier
Wendler, David
author_facet Dal‐Ré, Rafael
Carcas, Antonio J.
Carné, Xavier
Wendler, David
author_sort Dal‐Ré, Rafael
collection PubMed
description AIMS: Pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) collect data that have the potential to improve medical care significantly. However, these trials may be undermined by the requirement to obtain written informed consent, which can decrease accrual and increase selection bias. Recent data suggest that the majority of the US public endorses written consent for low‐risk pRCTs. The present study was designed to assess whether this view is specific to the US. METHODS: The study took the form of a cross‐sectional, probability‐based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design, assessing support for written informed consent vs. verbal consent or general notification for two low‐risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing two drugs with similar risk/benefit profiles and the other comparing the same drug being taken in the morning or at night. The primary outcome measures were respondents' personal preference and hypothetical recommendation to a research ethics committee regarding the use of written informed consent vs. the alternatives. RESULTS: A total of 2008 adults sampled from a probability‐based online panel responded to the web‐based survey conducted in May 2016 (response rate: 61%). Overall, 77% of respondents endorsed written consent. In both scenarios, the alternative of general notification received significantly more support (28.7–37.1%) than the alternative of verbal consent (12.7–14.0%) (P = 0.001). Forty per cent of respondents preferred and/or recommended general notification rather than written consent. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggested that, rather than attempting to waive written consent, current pRCTs should focus on developing ways to implement written consent that provide sufficient information without undermining recruitment or increasing selection bias. The finding that around 40% of respondents endorsed general notification over written consent raises the possibility that, with educational efforts, the majority of Spaniards might accept general notification for low‐risk pRCTs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5582372
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55823722017-09-06 Public preferences on written informed consent for low‐risk pragmatic clinical trials in Spain Dal‐Ré, Rafael Carcas, Antonio J. Carné, Xavier Wendler, David Br J Clin Pharmacol Clinical Trials AIMS: Pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) collect data that have the potential to improve medical care significantly. However, these trials may be undermined by the requirement to obtain written informed consent, which can decrease accrual and increase selection bias. Recent data suggest that the majority of the US public endorses written consent for low‐risk pRCTs. The present study was designed to assess whether this view is specific to the US. METHODS: The study took the form of a cross‐sectional, probability‐based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design, assessing support for written informed consent vs. verbal consent or general notification for two low‐risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing two drugs with similar risk/benefit profiles and the other comparing the same drug being taken in the morning or at night. The primary outcome measures were respondents' personal preference and hypothetical recommendation to a research ethics committee regarding the use of written informed consent vs. the alternatives. RESULTS: A total of 2008 adults sampled from a probability‐based online panel responded to the web‐based survey conducted in May 2016 (response rate: 61%). Overall, 77% of respondents endorsed written consent. In both scenarios, the alternative of general notification received significantly more support (28.7–37.1%) than the alternative of verbal consent (12.7–14.0%) (P = 0.001). Forty per cent of respondents preferred and/or recommended general notification rather than written consent. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggested that, rather than attempting to waive written consent, current pRCTs should focus on developing ways to implement written consent that provide sufficient information without undermining recruitment or increasing selection bias. The finding that around 40% of respondents endorsed general notification over written consent raises the possibility that, with educational efforts, the majority of Spaniards might accept general notification for low‐risk pRCTs. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-06-11 2017-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5582372/ /pubmed/28419518 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13305 Text en © 2017 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Clinical Trials
Dal‐Ré, Rafael
Carcas, Antonio J.
Carné, Xavier
Wendler, David
Public preferences on written informed consent for low‐risk pragmatic clinical trials in Spain
title Public preferences on written informed consent for low‐risk pragmatic clinical trials in Spain
title_full Public preferences on written informed consent for low‐risk pragmatic clinical trials in Spain
title_fullStr Public preferences on written informed consent for low‐risk pragmatic clinical trials in Spain
title_full_unstemmed Public preferences on written informed consent for low‐risk pragmatic clinical trials in Spain
title_short Public preferences on written informed consent for low‐risk pragmatic clinical trials in Spain
title_sort public preferences on written informed consent for low‐risk pragmatic clinical trials in spain
topic Clinical Trials
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5582372/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28419518
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13305
work_keys_str_mv AT dalrerafael publicpreferencesonwritteninformedconsentforlowriskpragmaticclinicaltrialsinspain
AT carcasantonioj publicpreferencesonwritteninformedconsentforlowriskpragmaticclinicaltrialsinspain
AT carnexavier publicpreferencesonwritteninformedconsentforlowriskpragmaticclinicaltrialsinspain
AT wendlerdavid publicpreferencesonwritteninformedconsentforlowriskpragmaticclinicaltrialsinspain