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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Walker, Sophie, Potts, Jennifer, Martos, Lola, Barrera, Alvaro, Hancock, Mark, Bell, Stuart, Geddes, John, Cipriani, Andrea, Henshall, Catherine
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