Cargando…
Consent to discuss participation in research: a pilot study
BACKGROUND: Equitable access to research studies needs to be increased for all patients. There is debate about which is the best approach to use to discuss participation in research in real-world clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the feasibility of asking all clinical staff within...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7229904/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31558561 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2019-300116 |
_version_ | 1783534847213436928 |
---|---|
author | Walker, Sophie Potts, Jennifer Martos, Lola Barrera, Alvaro Hancock, Mark Bell, Stuart Geddes, John Cipriani, Andrea Henshall, Catherine |
author_facet | Walker, Sophie Potts, Jennifer Martos, Lola Barrera, Alvaro Hancock, Mark Bell, Stuart Geddes, John Cipriani, Andrea Henshall, Catherine |
author_sort | Walker, Sophie |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Equitable access to research studies needs to be increased for all patients. There is debate about which is the best approach to use to discuss participation in research in real-world clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the feasibility of asking all clinical staff within one hospital Trust (an organisation that provides secondary health services within the English and Welsh National Health Service) to use a newly created form on the Trust’s electronic patient records system, as a means of asking patients to consent to discuss participation in research (the opt-in approach). We also aimed to collect feedback from patients and clinicians about their views of the opt-in approach. METHODS: Four pilot sites were selected in the Trust: two memory clinics, an adult mental health team and an acute adult ward. Data were collected in three phases: (1) for 6 months, pilot site staff were asked to complete a consent to discuss participation in research form with patients; (2) staff feedback on the form was collected through an online survey; and (3) patient feedback was collected through focus groups. FINDINGS: Of 1779 patients attending services during the pilot period, 197 (11%) had a form completed by staff and 143 (8%) opted-in to finding out about research. Staff cited limited time, low priority and poor user experience of the electronic patient records system as reasons for low uptake of the form. Patients generally approved of the approach but offered suggestions for improvement. CONCLUSIONS: There were mixed results for adopting an opt-in approach; uptake was very low, limiting its value as an effective strategy for improving access to research. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Alternative strategies to the opt-in approach, such as transparent opt out approaches, warrant consideration to maximise access to research within routine clinical care. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7229904 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72299042020-05-18 Consent to discuss participation in research: a pilot study Walker, Sophie Potts, Jennifer Martos, Lola Barrera, Alvaro Hancock, Mark Bell, Stuart Geddes, John Cipriani, Andrea Henshall, Catherine Evid Based Ment Health Original Research BACKGROUND: Equitable access to research studies needs to be increased for all patients. There is debate about which is the best approach to use to discuss participation in research in real-world clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the feasibility of asking all clinical staff within one hospital Trust (an organisation that provides secondary health services within the English and Welsh National Health Service) to use a newly created form on the Trust’s electronic patient records system, as a means of asking patients to consent to discuss participation in research (the opt-in approach). We also aimed to collect feedback from patients and clinicians about their views of the opt-in approach. METHODS: Four pilot sites were selected in the Trust: two memory clinics, an adult mental health team and an acute adult ward. Data were collected in three phases: (1) for 6 months, pilot site staff were asked to complete a consent to discuss participation in research form with patients; (2) staff feedback on the form was collected through an online survey; and (3) patient feedback was collected through focus groups. FINDINGS: Of 1779 patients attending services during the pilot period, 197 (11%) had a form completed by staff and 143 (8%) opted-in to finding out about research. Staff cited limited time, low priority and poor user experience of the electronic patient records system as reasons for low uptake of the form. Patients generally approved of the approach but offered suggestions for improvement. CONCLUSIONS: There were mixed results for adopting an opt-in approach; uptake was very low, limiting its value as an effective strategy for improving access to research. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Alternative strategies to the opt-in approach, such as transparent opt out approaches, warrant consideration to maximise access to research within routine clinical care. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-05 2019-09-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7229904/ /pubmed/31558561 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2019-300116 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Walker, Sophie Potts, Jennifer Martos, Lola Barrera, Alvaro Hancock, Mark Bell, Stuart Geddes, John Cipriani, Andrea Henshall, Catherine Consent to discuss participation in research: a pilot study |
title | Consent to discuss participation in research: a pilot study |
title_full | Consent to discuss participation in research: a pilot study |
title_fullStr | Consent to discuss participation in research: a pilot study |
title_full_unstemmed | Consent to discuss participation in research: a pilot study |
title_short | Consent to discuss participation in research: a pilot study |
title_sort | consent to discuss participation in research: a pilot study |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7229904/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31558561 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2019-300116 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT walkersophie consenttodiscussparticipationinresearchapilotstudy AT pottsjennifer consenttodiscussparticipationinresearchapilotstudy AT martoslola consenttodiscussparticipationinresearchapilotstudy AT barreraalvaro consenttodiscussparticipationinresearchapilotstudy AT hancockmark consenttodiscussparticipationinresearchapilotstudy AT bellstuart consenttodiscussparticipationinresearchapilotstudy AT geddesjohn consenttodiscussparticipationinresearchapilotstudy AT ciprianiandrea consenttodiscussparticipationinresearchapilotstudy AT henshallcatherine consenttodiscussparticipationinresearchapilotstudy |