Cargando…

Electronic informed consent criteria for research ethics review: a scoping review

BACKGROUND: The research shows a growing trend in using an electronic platform to supplement or replace traditional paper-based informed consent processes. Instead of the traditionally written informed consent document, electronic informed consent (eConsent) may be used to assess the research subjec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yusof, Mohd Yusmiaidil Putera Mohd, Teo, Chin Hai, Ng, Chirk Jenn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9682656/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36414962
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00849-x
_version_ 1784834897937956864
author Yusof, Mohd Yusmiaidil Putera Mohd
Teo, Chin Hai
Ng, Chirk Jenn
author_facet Yusof, Mohd Yusmiaidil Putera Mohd
Teo, Chin Hai
Ng, Chirk Jenn
author_sort Yusof, Mohd Yusmiaidil Putera Mohd
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The research shows a growing trend in using an electronic platform to supplement or replace traditional paper-based informed consent processes. Instead of the traditionally written informed consent document, electronic informed consent (eConsent) may be used to assess the research subject’s comprehension of the information presented. By doing so, respect for persons as one of the research ethical principles can be upheld. Furthermore, these electronic methods may reduce potential airborne infection exposures, particularly during the pandemic, thereby adhering to the beneficence and nonmaleficence principle. This scoping review aims to identify the ethics related criteria that have been included in electronic informed consent processes and to synthesize and map these criteria to research ethics principles, in order to identify the gaps, if any, in current electronic informed consent processes. METHODS: The search was performed based on internet search and three main databases: PubMed, SCOPUS and EBSCO. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation guideline was used to report this work. RESULTS: Of 34 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 242 essential original constructs were collated, and 7 concepts were derived. Digital content showed the highest percentage of collated original constructs (27%, n = 65) followed by accessibility (24%, n = 56), comprehension engagement (18%, n = 43), autonomy (14%, n = 34), confidentiality (11%, n = 25), language (5%, n = 13), and parental consent (1%, n = 2). Twenty-five new items were synthesized for eConsent criteria which may provide guidance for ethical review of research involving eConsent. CONCLUSION: The current study adds significant value to the corpus of knowledge in research ethics by providing ethical criteria on electronic informed consent based on evidence-based data. The new synthesized items in the criteria can be readily used as an initial guide by the IRB/REC members during a review process on electronic informed consent and useful to the future preparation of a checklist. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-022-00849-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9682656
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96826562022-11-24 Electronic informed consent criteria for research ethics review: a scoping review Yusof, Mohd Yusmiaidil Putera Mohd Teo, Chin Hai Ng, Chirk Jenn BMC Med Ethics Research BACKGROUND: The research shows a growing trend in using an electronic platform to supplement or replace traditional paper-based informed consent processes. Instead of the traditionally written informed consent document, electronic informed consent (eConsent) may be used to assess the research subject’s comprehension of the information presented. By doing so, respect for persons as one of the research ethical principles can be upheld. Furthermore, these electronic methods may reduce potential airborne infection exposures, particularly during the pandemic, thereby adhering to the beneficence and nonmaleficence principle. This scoping review aims to identify the ethics related criteria that have been included in electronic informed consent processes and to synthesize and map these criteria to research ethics principles, in order to identify the gaps, if any, in current electronic informed consent processes. METHODS: The search was performed based on internet search and three main databases: PubMed, SCOPUS and EBSCO. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation guideline was used to report this work. RESULTS: Of 34 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 242 essential original constructs were collated, and 7 concepts were derived. Digital content showed the highest percentage of collated original constructs (27%, n = 65) followed by accessibility (24%, n = 56), comprehension engagement (18%, n = 43), autonomy (14%, n = 34), confidentiality (11%, n = 25), language (5%, n = 13), and parental consent (1%, n = 2). Twenty-five new items were synthesized for eConsent criteria which may provide guidance for ethical review of research involving eConsent. CONCLUSION: The current study adds significant value to the corpus of knowledge in research ethics by providing ethical criteria on electronic informed consent based on evidence-based data. The new synthesized items in the criteria can be readily used as an initial guide by the IRB/REC members during a review process on electronic informed consent and useful to the future preparation of a checklist. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-022-00849-x. BioMed Central 2022-11-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9682656/ /pubmed/36414962 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00849-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 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
Yusof, Mohd Yusmiaidil Putera Mohd
Teo, Chin Hai
Ng, Chirk Jenn
Electronic informed consent criteria for research ethics review: a scoping review
title Electronic informed consent criteria for research ethics review: a scoping review
title_full Electronic informed consent criteria for research ethics review: a scoping review
title_fullStr Electronic informed consent criteria for research ethics review: a scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Electronic informed consent criteria for research ethics review: a scoping review
title_short Electronic informed consent criteria for research ethics review: a scoping review
title_sort electronic informed consent criteria for research ethics review: a scoping review
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9682656/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36414962
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00849-x
work_keys_str_mv AT yusofmohdyusmiaidilputeramohd electronicinformedconsentcriteriaforresearchethicsreviewascopingreview
AT teochinhai electronicinformedconsentcriteriaforresearchethicsreviewascopingreview
AT ngchirkjenn electronicinformedconsentcriteriaforresearchethicsreviewascopingreview