Cargando…

An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff

BACKGROUND: The process of informed consent for enrolment to a clinical research study can be complex for both participants and research staff. Challenges include respecting the potential participant’s autonomy and information needs while simultaneously providing adequate information to enable an in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: O’ Sullivan, Lydia, Feeney, Laura, Crowley, Rachel K., Sukumar, Prasanth, McAuliffe, Eilish, Doran, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8371296/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34407858
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05493-1
_version_ 1783739612475162624
author O’ Sullivan, Lydia
Feeney, Laura
Crowley, Rachel K.
Sukumar, Prasanth
McAuliffe, Eilish
Doran, Peter
author_facet O’ Sullivan, Lydia
Feeney, Laura
Crowley, Rachel K.
Sukumar, Prasanth
McAuliffe, Eilish
Doran, Peter
author_sort O’ Sullivan, Lydia
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The process of informed consent for enrolment to a clinical research study can be complex for both participants and research staff. Challenges include respecting the potential participant’s autonomy and information needs while simultaneously providing adequate information to enable an informed decision. Qualitative research with small sample sizes has added to our understanding of these challenges. However, there is value in garnering the perspectives of research participants and staff across larger samples to explore the impact of contextual factors (time spent, the timing of the discussion and the setting), on the informed consent process. METHODS: Research staff and research participants from Ireland and the UK were invited to complete an anonymous survey by post or online (research participants) and online (research staff). The surveys aimed to quantify the perceptions of research participants and staff regarding some contextual factors about the process of informed consent. The survey, which contained 14 and 16 multiple choice questions for research participants and staff respectively, was analysed using descriptive statistics. Both surveys included one optional, open-ended question, which were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Research participants (169) and research staff (115) completed the survey. Research participants were predominantly positive about the informed consent process but highlighted the importance of having sufficient time and the value of providing follow-up once the study concludes, e.g. providing results to participants. Most staff (74.4%) staff reported that they felt very confident or confident facilitating informed consent discussions, but 63% felt information leaflets were too long and/or complicated, 56% were concerned about whether participants had understood complex information and 40% felt that time constraints were a barrier. A dominant theme from the open-ended responses to the staff survey was the importance of adequate time and resources. CONCLUSIONS: Research participants in this study were overwhelmingly positive about their experience of the informed consent process. However, research staff expressed concern about how much participants have understood and studies of patient comprehension of research study information would seem to confirm these fears. This study highlights the importance of allocating adequate time to informed consent discussions, and research staff could consider using Teach Back techniques. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05493-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8371296
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83712962021-08-18 An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff O’ Sullivan, Lydia Feeney, Laura Crowley, Rachel K. Sukumar, Prasanth McAuliffe, Eilish Doran, Peter Trials Research BACKGROUND: The process of informed consent for enrolment to a clinical research study can be complex for both participants and research staff. Challenges include respecting the potential participant’s autonomy and information needs while simultaneously providing adequate information to enable an informed decision. Qualitative research with small sample sizes has added to our understanding of these challenges. However, there is value in garnering the perspectives of research participants and staff across larger samples to explore the impact of contextual factors (time spent, the timing of the discussion and the setting), on the informed consent process. METHODS: Research staff and research participants from Ireland and the UK were invited to complete an anonymous survey by post or online (research participants) and online (research staff). The surveys aimed to quantify the perceptions of research participants and staff regarding some contextual factors about the process of informed consent. The survey, which contained 14 and 16 multiple choice questions for research participants and staff respectively, was analysed using descriptive statistics. Both surveys included one optional, open-ended question, which were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Research participants (169) and research staff (115) completed the survey. Research participants were predominantly positive about the informed consent process but highlighted the importance of having sufficient time and the value of providing follow-up once the study concludes, e.g. providing results to participants. Most staff (74.4%) staff reported that they felt very confident or confident facilitating informed consent discussions, but 63% felt information leaflets were too long and/or complicated, 56% were concerned about whether participants had understood complex information and 40% felt that time constraints were a barrier. A dominant theme from the open-ended responses to the staff survey was the importance of adequate time and resources. CONCLUSIONS: Research participants in this study were overwhelmingly positive about their experience of the informed consent process. However, research staff expressed concern about how much participants have understood and studies of patient comprehension of research study information would seem to confirm these fears. This study highlights the importance of allocating adequate time to informed consent discussions, and research staff could consider using Teach Back techniques. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05493-1. BioMed Central 2021-08-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8371296/ /pubmed/34407858 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05493-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
O’ Sullivan, Lydia
Feeney, Laura
Crowley, Rachel K.
Sukumar, Prasanth
McAuliffe, Eilish
Doran, Peter
An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff
title An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff
title_full An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff
title_fullStr An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff
title_full_unstemmed An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff
title_short An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff
title_sort evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8371296/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34407858
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05493-1
work_keys_str_mv AT osullivanlydia anevaluationoftheprocessofinformedconsentviewsfromresearchparticipantsandstaff
AT feeneylaura anevaluationoftheprocessofinformedconsentviewsfromresearchparticipantsandstaff
AT crowleyrachelk anevaluationoftheprocessofinformedconsentviewsfromresearchparticipantsandstaff
AT sukumarprasanth anevaluationoftheprocessofinformedconsentviewsfromresearchparticipantsandstaff
AT mcauliffeeilish anevaluationoftheprocessofinformedconsentviewsfromresearchparticipantsandstaff
AT doranpeter anevaluationoftheprocessofinformedconsentviewsfromresearchparticipantsandstaff
AT osullivanlydia evaluationoftheprocessofinformedconsentviewsfromresearchparticipantsandstaff
AT feeneylaura evaluationoftheprocessofinformedconsentviewsfromresearchparticipantsandstaff
AT crowleyrachelk evaluationoftheprocessofinformedconsentviewsfromresearchparticipantsandstaff
AT sukumarprasanth evaluationoftheprocessofinformedconsentviewsfromresearchparticipantsandstaff
AT mcauliffeeilish evaluationoftheprocessofinformedconsentviewsfromresearchparticipantsandstaff
AT doranpeter evaluationoftheprocessofinformedconsentviewsfromresearchparticipantsandstaff