Cargando…
Patient experience of the informed consent process during acute myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the patient experience of informed consent (IC) during acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial. The original trial compared two anticoagulant agents in patients undergoing coronary intervention. A witnessed oral IC was required...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7059267/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32143733 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4147-0 |
_version_ | 1783504013658947584 |
---|---|
author | Olsson, Anneli Ring, Camilla Josefsson, Johan Eriksson, Annika Rylance, Rebecca Fröbert, Ole James, Stefan Sparv, David Erlinge, David |
author_facet | Olsson, Anneli Ring, Camilla Josefsson, Johan Eriksson, Annika Rylance, Rebecca Fröbert, Ole James, Stefan Sparv, David Erlinge, David |
author_sort | Olsson, Anneli |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the patient experience of informed consent (IC) during acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial. The original trial compared two anticoagulant agents in patients undergoing coronary intervention. A witnessed oral IC was required prior to randomization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, which was subsequently complemented with a written IC after percutaneous coronary intervention. Written consent was obtained before angiography in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. BACKGROUND: The IC process in patients with AMI is under debate. Earlier trials in this population have required prospective consent before randomization. A trial published some years ago used deferred consent, but the patient experience of this process is poorly studied. METHODS: A total of 414 patients who participated in the main trial were enrolled and asked the following questions: (1) Do you remember being asked to participate in a study? (2) How was your experience of being asked to participate; do you remember it being positive or negative? (3) Would you have liked more information about the study? (4) Do you think it would have been better if you were included in the study without being informed until a later time? RESULTS: Of these patients, 94% remembered being included; 85% of them experienced this positively, 12% were neutral and 3% negative. Regarding more information, 88% did not want further information, and 68% expressed that they wanted to be consulted before inclusion. Of the patients, 5% thought it would have been better to have study inclusion without consent, and 27% considered it of no importance. CONCLUSION: It is reasonable to ask patients for verbal IC in the acute phase of AMI. Most patients felt positively about being asked to participate and had knowledge of being enrolled in a scientific study. In addition they objected to providing IC after randomization and treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART European Union Clinical Trials Register: 2012-005260-10. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02311231. Registered on 8 Dec 2014. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7059267 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70592672020-03-12 Patient experience of the informed consent process during acute myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial Olsson, Anneli Ring, Camilla Josefsson, Johan Eriksson, Annika Rylance, Rebecca Fröbert, Ole James, Stefan Sparv, David Erlinge, David Trials Research OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the patient experience of informed consent (IC) during acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial. The original trial compared two anticoagulant agents in patients undergoing coronary intervention. A witnessed oral IC was required prior to randomization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, which was subsequently complemented with a written IC after percutaneous coronary intervention. Written consent was obtained before angiography in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. BACKGROUND: The IC process in patients with AMI is under debate. Earlier trials in this population have required prospective consent before randomization. A trial published some years ago used deferred consent, but the patient experience of this process is poorly studied. METHODS: A total of 414 patients who participated in the main trial were enrolled and asked the following questions: (1) Do you remember being asked to participate in a study? (2) How was your experience of being asked to participate; do you remember it being positive or negative? (3) Would you have liked more information about the study? (4) Do you think it would have been better if you were included in the study without being informed until a later time? RESULTS: Of these patients, 94% remembered being included; 85% of them experienced this positively, 12% were neutral and 3% negative. Regarding more information, 88% did not want further information, and 68% expressed that they wanted to be consulted before inclusion. Of the patients, 5% thought it would have been better to have study inclusion without consent, and 27% considered it of no importance. CONCLUSION: It is reasonable to ask patients for verbal IC in the acute phase of AMI. Most patients felt positively about being asked to participate and had knowledge of being enrolled in a scientific study. In addition they objected to providing IC after randomization and treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART European Union Clinical Trials Register: 2012-005260-10. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02311231. Registered on 8 Dec 2014. BioMed Central 2020-03-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7059267/ /pubmed/32143733 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4147-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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 | Research Olsson, Anneli Ring, Camilla Josefsson, Johan Eriksson, Annika Rylance, Rebecca Fröbert, Ole James, Stefan Sparv, David Erlinge, David Patient experience of the informed consent process during acute myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial |
title | Patient experience of the informed consent process during acute myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial |
title_full | Patient experience of the informed consent process during acute myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial |
title_fullStr | Patient experience of the informed consent process during acute myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Patient experience of the informed consent process during acute myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial |
title_short | Patient experience of the informed consent process during acute myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial |
title_sort | patient experience of the informed consent process during acute myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the validate-swedeheart trial |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7059267/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32143733 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4147-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT olssonanneli patientexperienceoftheinformedconsentprocessduringacutemyocardialinfarctionasubstudyofthevalidateswedehearttrial AT ringcamilla patientexperienceoftheinformedconsentprocessduringacutemyocardialinfarctionasubstudyofthevalidateswedehearttrial AT josefssonjohan patientexperienceoftheinformedconsentprocessduringacutemyocardialinfarctionasubstudyofthevalidateswedehearttrial AT erikssonannika patientexperienceoftheinformedconsentprocessduringacutemyocardialinfarctionasubstudyofthevalidateswedehearttrial AT rylancerebecca patientexperienceoftheinformedconsentprocessduringacutemyocardialinfarctionasubstudyofthevalidateswedehearttrial AT frobertole patientexperienceoftheinformedconsentprocessduringacutemyocardialinfarctionasubstudyofthevalidateswedehearttrial AT jamesstefan patientexperienceoftheinformedconsentprocessduringacutemyocardialinfarctionasubstudyofthevalidateswedehearttrial AT sparvdavid patientexperienceoftheinformedconsentprocessduringacutemyocardialinfarctionasubstudyofthevalidateswedehearttrial AT erlingedavid patientexperienceoftheinformedconsentprocessduringacutemyocardialinfarctionasubstudyofthevalidateswedehearttrial |