Cargando…

The Challenges of Informed Consent in High-Stakes, Randomized Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review

Importance. Oncology trials often entail high-stakes interventions where potential for morbidity and fatal side effects, and for life-prolongation or cure, intensify bioethical issues surrounding informed consent. These challenges are compounded in multistage randomized trials, which are prevalent i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nathe, Julia M., Krakow, Elizabeth F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6440043/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30944886
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2381468319840322
_version_ 1783407318958866432
author Nathe, Julia M.
Krakow, Elizabeth F.
author_facet Nathe, Julia M.
Krakow, Elizabeth F.
author_sort Nathe, Julia M.
collection PubMed
description Importance. Oncology trials often entail high-stakes interventions where potential for morbidity and fatal side effects, and for life-prolongation or cure, intensify bioethical issues surrounding informed consent. These challenges are compounded in multistage randomized trials, which are prevalent in oncology. Objective. We sought to elucidate the major barriers to informed consent in high-stakes oncology trials in general and the best consent practices for multistage randomized trials. Evidence Review. We queried PubMed for original studies published from January 1, 1990, to April 5, 2018, that focused on readability, quality, complexity or length of consent documents, motivation and sickness level of participants, or interventions and enhancements that influence informed consent for high-stakes oncologic interventions. Exclusion criteria included articles focused on populations outside industrialized countries, minors or other vulnerable populations, physician preferences, cancer screening and prevention, or recruitment strategies. Additional articles were identified through comprehensive bibliographic review. Findings. Twenty-seven articles were retained; 19 enrolled participants and 8 examined samples of consent documents. Methodologic quality was variable. This body of literature identified certain challenges that can be readily remedied. For example, the average length of the consent forms has increased 10-fold from 1987 to 2010, and patient understanding was shown to be inversely proportional to page count; shortening forms, or providing a concise summary as mandated by the revised Common Rule, might help. However, barriers to understanding that stem from deeply ingrained and flawed sociocultural perceptions of medical research seem more difficult to surmount. Although no studies specifically addressed problems posed by multiple sequential randomizations (such as change in risk-benefit ratio due to time-varying treatment responses or organ toxicities), the findings are likely applicable and especially relevant in that context. Concrete suggestions for improvement are proposed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6440043
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64400432019-04-03 The Challenges of Informed Consent in High-Stakes, Randomized Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review Nathe, Julia M. Krakow, Elizabeth F. MDM Policy Pract Systematic Review Importance. Oncology trials often entail high-stakes interventions where potential for morbidity and fatal side effects, and for life-prolongation or cure, intensify bioethical issues surrounding informed consent. These challenges are compounded in multistage randomized trials, which are prevalent in oncology. Objective. We sought to elucidate the major barriers to informed consent in high-stakes oncology trials in general and the best consent practices for multistage randomized trials. Evidence Review. We queried PubMed for original studies published from January 1, 1990, to April 5, 2018, that focused on readability, quality, complexity or length of consent documents, motivation and sickness level of participants, or interventions and enhancements that influence informed consent for high-stakes oncologic interventions. Exclusion criteria included articles focused on populations outside industrialized countries, minors or other vulnerable populations, physician preferences, cancer screening and prevention, or recruitment strategies. Additional articles were identified through comprehensive bibliographic review. Findings. Twenty-seven articles were retained; 19 enrolled participants and 8 examined samples of consent documents. Methodologic quality was variable. This body of literature identified certain challenges that can be readily remedied. For example, the average length of the consent forms has increased 10-fold from 1987 to 2010, and patient understanding was shown to be inversely proportional to page count; shortening forms, or providing a concise summary as mandated by the revised Common Rule, might help. However, barriers to understanding that stem from deeply ingrained and flawed sociocultural perceptions of medical research seem more difficult to surmount. Although no studies specifically addressed problems posed by multiple sequential randomizations (such as change in risk-benefit ratio due to time-varying treatment responses or organ toxicities), the findings are likely applicable and especially relevant in that context. Concrete suggestions for improvement are proposed. SAGE Publications 2019-03-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6440043/ /pubmed/30944886 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2381468319840322 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Nathe, Julia M.
Krakow, Elizabeth F.
The Challenges of Informed Consent in High-Stakes, Randomized Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review
title The Challenges of Informed Consent in High-Stakes, Randomized Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review
title_full The Challenges of Informed Consent in High-Stakes, Randomized Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr The Challenges of Informed Consent in High-Stakes, Randomized Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed The Challenges of Informed Consent in High-Stakes, Randomized Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review
title_short The Challenges of Informed Consent in High-Stakes, Randomized Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review
title_sort challenges of informed consent in high-stakes, randomized oncology trials: a systematic review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6440043/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30944886
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2381468319840322
work_keys_str_mv AT nathejuliam thechallengesofinformedconsentinhighstakesrandomizedoncologytrialsasystematicreview
AT krakowelizabethf thechallengesofinformedconsentinhighstakesrandomizedoncologytrialsasystematicreview
AT nathejuliam challengesofinformedconsentinhighstakesrandomizedoncologytrialsasystematicreview
AT krakowelizabethf challengesofinformedconsentinhighstakesrandomizedoncologytrialsasystematicreview