Designing e-consent protocols for pragmatic clinical trials: case studies from a UKCRC clinical trials unit.

BACKGROUND: Interest in and use of electronic consent (e-consent) in the conduct of academic clinical trials has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic. E-consent offers advantages including increased efficiency and accessibility, and reduced burden on site staff, which can be appealing to academic trialists anticipating challenges in recruitment to complex trial designs or with limited funding. However, there are many options to consider when using e-consent in a study protocol. This paper presents five case studies from Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, demonstrating how e-consent models can be effectively tailored to the needs of different trials. These examples illustrate the options around and benefits of e-consent, the acceptability of e-consent by participants, and the design considerations that were made during the development of the trial protocols. CASE STUDIES: Five randomised trials are presented, selected from a range of different trial designs, disease areas, interventions, and patient populations. E-consent was either offered as an alternative to paper consent, according to participant preference, or as the sole method of consent. E-consent was generally used to facilitate remote consent in decentralised trials but was also chosen to increase efficiency and reduce burden in an emergency department setting. The technical implementation of e-consent and detailed participant procedures were tailored to the needs of the trial settings and patient populations. For example, accompanying participant information sheets were provided in paper or electronic form, and electronic signatures could be typed or drawn. Administrative data on uptake of e-consent is presented where available. CONCLUSION: This paper demonstrates that the operational and technical aspects of implementing e-consent in clinical trials can be influenced by the trial design, the needs and characteristics of the trial population, financial/efficiency considerations, and level of risk. E-consent is not a one-size-fits-all tool for trials, and its use should be carefully considered during the development of the trial protocol, in conjunction with patient and public involvement contributors, site staff and other trial stakeholders.

Use of E-Consent in Healthcare Settings: A Scoping Review.

Electronic consent is a technology-driven approach that remains challenging in various healthcare settings. Transitioning from paper-based to electronic consent (e-consent) has streamlined the consent process. This scoping review explores patients' electronic consent in different healthcare settings. We searched four databases and selected 14 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Our results show that E-consent is associated with key measures such as sufficient information, accuracy, enhanced shared decision-making, and efficiency. The majority of studies used a comparative design model to contrast paper-based consent with E-consent. Our findings provide an overview of the current state of E-consent use in healthcare settings.

Comparison of the Response to an Electronic Versus a Traditional Informed Consent Procedure in Terms of Clinical Patient Characteristics: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Electronic informed consent (eIC) is increasingly used in clinical research due to several benefits including increased enrollment and improved efficiency. Within a learning health care system, a pilot was conducted with an eIC for linking data from electronic health records with national registries, general practitioners, and other hospitals. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the eIC pilot by comparing the response to the eIC with the former traditional paper-based informed consent (IC). We assessed whether the use of eIC resulted in a different study population by comparing the clinical patient characteristics between the response categories of the eIC and former face-to-face IC procedure. METHODS: All patients with increased cardiovascular risk visiting the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, were eligible for the learning health care system. From November 2021 to August 2022, an eIC was piloted at the cardiology outpatient clinic. Prior to the pilot, a traditional face-to-face paper-based IC approach was used. Responses (ie, consent, no consent, or nonresponse) were assessed and compared between the eIC and face-to-face IC cohorts. Clinical characteristics of consenting and nonresponding patients were compared between and within the eIC and the face-to-face cohorts using multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 2254 patients were included in the face-to-face IC cohort and 885 patients in the eIC cohort. Full consent was more often obtained in the eIC than in the face-to-face cohort (415/885, 46.9% vs 876/2254, 38.9%, respectively). Apart from lower mean hemoglobin in the full consent group of the eIC cohort (8.5 vs 8.8; P=.0021), the characteristics of the full consenting patients did not differ between the eIC and face-to-face IC cohorts. In the eIC cohort, only age differed between the full consent and the nonresponse group (median 60 vs 56; P=.0002, respectively), whereas in the face-to-face IC cohort, the full consent group seemed healthier (ie, higher hemoglobin, lower glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c], lower C-reactive protein levels) than the nonresponse group. CONCLUSIONS: More patients provided full consent using an eIC. In addition, the study population remained broadly similar. The face-to-face IC approach seemed to result in a healthier study population (ie, full consenting patients) than the patients without IC, while in the eIC cohort, the characteristics between consent groups were comparable. Thus, an eIC may lead to a better representation of the target population, increasing the generalizability of results.

Utilization of Teleconsent for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Clinical Trials, a Report from the Children's Oncology Group.

Purpose: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs, ages 15-39 years) are underrepresented in oncology clinical trials. Reasons for this include accessibility of the trial and whether the trial is presented to AYAs. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic not only amplified these enrollment challenges but also presented opportunities for improving the enrollment process through virtual methods such as electronic informed consent and teleconsent. While AYAs are well positioned to take advantage of these opportunities, the extent to which institutions utilize remote enrollment processes is unclear. The goal of this study was to identify the utilization of and barriers to using teleconsent for AYA oncology clinical trials. Methods: The Children's Oncology Group (COG) AYA Responsible Investigator (RI) Network Teleconsent Working Group sought to understand teleconsent utilization both before and during the pandemic. The working group developed an online survey distributed via email to COG AYA RI Network members (n = 197). Results: The survey received 49 responses (25%) from 40 different institutions. Before the pandemic, 13% of respondents reported that their institution allowed study enrollment via teleconsent. After the pandemic, 23% reported using teleconsent for clinical trial enrollment and 38% reported changes in institutional Review Board policies and procedures allowing teleconsent. Respondents reported that the greatest benefit of teleconsent was patient convenience and the greatest barrier was institutional restrictions on teleconsent utilization. Respondents reported that sharing institutional guidelines would be the most helpful intervention to improve teleconsent adoption. Conclusion: Teleconsent is a promising but underutilized approach. Institutions should work together to address common challenges to accessibility and acceptance of clinical trials by AYA cancer patients.

Digital consent in gynecology: an evaluation of patient experience.

INTRODUCTION: The surgical consent process is a crucial discussion between patient and surgeon, which is predominantly documented utilizing hand-written forms. The exchange of individualized information allows the patient to make a truly informed decision. Digital consent (also known as electronic consent or e-consent) has been shown to improve accuracy of information provided without increasing the time taken to consent patients. We aimed to evaluate patient experience and effectiveness of digital consent in a gynecology department in a tertiary London Teaching Hospital. METHODS: A questionnaire was designed and completed by 100 patients undergoing gynecological surgery: 50 consented using paper and 50 consented digitally. The questionnaire included 8 statements, with five possible answers to select, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, on a standard five-point Likert Scale. Patients were all female and categorized into age groups (deciles) and asked whether consent was taken digitally or on paper. Data were collected between January and July 2021. RESULTS: Most responses were positive with 87% (694/800) of responses to the questions being either strongly agree or agree. Patients who were consented using paper selected 'strongly agree' 43.5% (174/400) of the time in comparison to 64.8% (259/400) of the time when they were consented digitally. The majority, 86% (43/50), of digitally consented patients received a copy of the consent form in comparison to 18% (9/50) of those consented using paper. On average, the patients consented digitally were older than their paper-consented counterparts (49-58 and 59-68 respectively). The mean scores for the questions relating to the ease of reading the form, ease of understanding the form, understanding of the potential complications, and overall satisfaction were higher in those digitally consented (p < 0.05). DISCUSSION: Overall, patients were satisfied with both methods of consent. However, individuals who were consented digitally reported higher levels of satisfaction throughout the consent process, compared to paper consent. These data suggest that digital consent is an acceptable alternative to paper consent for patients and facilitates adherence to national consent guidance, which stipulates patients should be given the information they request.

Combined Results of Two Cross-Sectional Surveys on the Participation in Clinical Trials and the e-Consent Procedure in the Landscape of Haematology.

Despite the motivation of oncology patients to take part in clinical trials, only a minority of them are enrolled in clinical trials. Implementation of new practical procedures can become a barrier that withholds patients from participating in clinical trials. Treating physicians are crucial in augmenting trial accrual. The drivers that promote physicians to allocate patients for clinical trials need further assessment. We conducted two separate cross-sectional surveys, addressing patients with a haematological disease in one survey and haematologists in another survey. The patient survey was filled out by 420 patients. Significant relationships between the willingness to participate in a trial and trial knowledge (p < 0.001) and between doctor-patient relationship and participation willingness (p = 0.007) were noted. Patients above 60 years were less willing to use an electronic consent procedure vs. patients younger than 60 (p < 0.001). The physician questionnaire was completed by 42 participants of whom most (83%) were active in and (94%) motivated for clinical trials. Apart from the patient benefit and scientific interest, prestige was an equal motivator closely followed by financial remunerations. First goal was not to harm the patient. Our study confirms the high willingness of patients for trial participation and the need to rethink the structure of trial organisation. The e-consent procedure is not the method preferred by most patients above 60 years old.

e-Consent in UK academic-led clinical trials: current practice, challenges and the need for more evidence.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person healthcare visits were reduced. Consequently, trial teams needed to consider implementing remote methods for conducting clinical trials, including e-Consent. Although some clinical trials may have implemented e-Consent prior to the pandemic, anecdotes of uptake for this method increased within academic-led trials. When the increased use of this process emerged, representatives from several large academic clinical trial groups within the UK collaborated to discuss ways in which trialists can learn from one another when implementing e-Consent. METHODS: A survey of UKCRC-registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) was undertaken in April-June 2021 to understand the implementation of and their views on the use of e-Consent and experiences from the perspectives of systems programmers and quality assurance staff on the use of e-Consent. CTUs not using e-Consent were asked to provide any reasons/barriers (including no suitable trials) and any plans for implementing it in the future. Two events for trialists and patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives were then held to disseminate findings, foster discussion, share experiences and aid in the identification of areas that the academic CTU community felt required more research. RESULTS: Thirty-four (64%) of 53 CTUs responded to the survey, with good geographical representation across the UK. Twenty-one (62%) of the responding CTUs had implemented e-Consent in at least one of their trials, across different types of trials, including CTIMPs (Clinical Trial of Investigational Medicinal Product), ATIMPs (Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products) and non-CTIMPs. One hundred ninety-seven participants attended the two workshops for wide-ranging discussions. CONCLUSION: e-Consent is increasingly used in academic-led trials, yet uncertainties remain amongst trialists, patients and members of the public. Uncertainties include a lack of formal, practical guidance and a lack of evidence to demonstrate optimal or appropriate methods to use. We strongly encourage trialists to continue to share their own experiences of the implementation of e-Consent.

Innovative Technologies in CNS Trials: Promises and Pitfalls for Recruitment, Retention, and Representativeness.

Objective: Recruitment of a sufficiently large and representative patient sample and its retention during central nervous system (CNS) trials presents major challenges for study sponsors. Technological advances are reshaping clinical trial operations to meet these challenges, and the COVID-19 pandemic further accelerated this development. Method of Research: The International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology (ISCTM; www.isctm.org) Innovative Technologies for CNS Trials Working Group surveyed the state of technological innovations for improved recruitment and retention and assessed their promises and pitfalls. Results: Online advertisement and electronic patient registries can enhance recruitment, but challenges with sample representativeness, conversion rates from eligible prescreening to enrolled patients, data privacy and security, and patient identification remain hurdles for optimal use of these technologies. Electronic medical records (EMR) mining with artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) methods is promising but awaits translation into trials. During the study treatment phase, technological innovations increasingly support participant retention, including adherence with the investigational treatment. Digital tools for adherence and retention support take many forms, including patient-centric communication channels between researchers and participants, real-time study reminders, and digital behavioral interventions to increase study compliance. However, such tools add technical complexities to trials, and their impact on the generalizability of results are largely unknown. Conclusion: Overall, the group found a scarcity of systematic data directly assessing the impact of technological innovations on study recruitment and retention in CNS trials, even for strategies with already high adoption, such as online recruitment. Given the added complexity and costs associated with most technological innovations, such data is needed to fully harness technologies for CNS trials and drive further adoption.

The use of e-consent in surgery and application to neurosurgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The integration of novel electronic informed consent platforms in healthcare has undergone significant growth over the last decade. Adoption of uniform, accessible, and robust electronic online consenting applications is likely to enhance the informed consent process and improve the patient experience and has the potential to reduce medico-legal ramifications of inadequate consent. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the utility of novel electronic means of informed consent in surgical patients and discuss its application to neurosurgical cohorts. METHODS: A review of randomised controlled trials, non-randomised studies of health interventions, and single group pre-post design studies in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Random effects modelling was used to estimate pooled proportions of study outcomes. Patient satisfaction with the informed consent process and patients' gain in knowledge were compared for electronic technologies versus non-electronic instruments. A sub-group analysis was conducted to compare the utility of electronic technologies in neurosurgical cohorts relative to other surgical patients in the context of patient satisfaction and knowledge gain. RESULTS: Of 1042 screened abstracts, 63 studies were included: 44 randomised controlled trials (n = 4985), 4 non-randomised studies of health interventions (n = 387), and 15 single group pre-post design studies (n = 872). Meta-analysis showed that electronic technologies significantly enhanced patient satisfaction with the informed consent process (P < 0.00001) and patients' gain in knowledge (P < 0.00001) compared to standard non-electronic practices. Sub-group analysis demonstrated that neurosurgical patient knowledge was significantly enhanced with electronic technologies when compared to other surgical patients (P = 0.009), but there was no difference in patient satisfaction between neurosurgical cohorts and other surgical patients with respect to electronic technologies (P = 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: Novel electronic technologies can enhance patient satisfaction and increase patients' gain in knowledge of their surgical procedures. Electronic patient education tools can significantly enhance patient knowledge for neurosurgical patients. If used appropriately, these modalities can shorten and/or improve the consent discussion, streamlining the surgical process and improving satisfaction for neurosurgical patients.

"And then I found $5": Optimizing recruitment efficiency in remote clinical trials.

Introduction: As clinical trials adopt remote methodologies, there is need to optimize efficiency of remote enrollment. Within a remote clinical trial, we aim to (1) assess if sociodemographic factors differ among those consenting via mail vs. technology-based procedures (e-consent), (2) determine if, among those consenting via mail, a small unconditional monetary reward ($5) increases likelihood of subsequent enrollment, (3) economically evaluate additional cost per additional participant enrolled with $5 reward. Methods: In the parent nationwide randomized clinical trial of adult smokers (N = 638), participants could enroll via mail or e-consent. Logistic regression models assessed relationships between sociodemographics and enrollment via mail (vs e-consent). Mailed consent packets were randomized (1:4) to include $5 unconditional reward or not, and logistic regression modeling examined impact of reward on subsequent enrollment, allowing for a randomized study within a study. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio analysis estimated additional cost per additional participant enrolled with $5 incentive. Results: Older age, less education, lower income, and female sex predicted enrolling via mail vs e-consent (p < .05's). In adjusted model, older age (AOR = 1.02, p = .016) and less education (AOR = 2.23, p < .001) remained predictive of mail enrollment. The $5 incentive (vs none) increased enrollment rate by 9% (AOR = 1.64, p = .007), with estimated cost of additional $59 per additional participant enrolled. Conclusions: As e-consent methods become more common, they have potential to reach many individuals but with perhaps diminished inclusion across all sociodemographic groups. Provision of an unconditional monetary incentive is possibly a cost-effective mechanism to increase recruitment efficiency for studies employing mail-based consenting procedures.

Electronic Patient Reported Outcomes for Miscarriage Research in Tommy's Net.

The Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research aims to support the diagnosis and treatment for couples suffering from recurrent miscarriage. Tommy's Net is an electronic data gathering tool, collecting miscarriage data and links with hospital Clinical Information System databases. The gathering of patient reported data is an important aspect, especially as data relating to pregnancy and miscarriage events are often left unreported. METHODS: Both traditional paper-based and electronic patient reported outcome (ePRO) solutions have been explored to improve response rates, minimize data redundancy and reduce burden on staff. Popular ePRO survey solutions have been compared, including REDCap, SurveyMonkey, Qualtrics and LimeSurvey. RESULTS: LimeSurvey was selected as the most appropriate solution as it provided self-hosting capability, SMS integration and ease of use. CONCLUSION: We have implemented a LimeSurvey based ePRO system for collection of baseline and follow-up data for participants on the Tommy's study.

Participant comprehension and perspectives regarding the convenience, security, and satisfaction with teleconsent compared to in-person consent: A parallel-group pilot study among Danish citizens.

Background: Teleconsent via video conferencing enables decentralized trials with remote consent and has the additional benefit of allowing a real-time reaction to potential misunderstandings. However, participant acceptance of and satisfaction with teleconsent versus in-person consent processes are unknown. Methods: We conducted a parallel-group pilot study to evaluate participant comprehension and perspectives regarding the convenience, security, and satisfaction with teleconsent compared to in-person consent among Danish citizens for a hypothetical research study. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in perceptions of security or satisfaction between teleconsent and in-person consent arms. However, participants viewed teleconsent as more convenient than in-person consent, as no transportation was needed and the process was less time-consuming. Recruitment was also faster in the teleconsent arm, and more people dropped out of the in-person arm, citing difficulties with transportation and time. Conclusion: Decentralized clinical trials have been demonstrated to increase recruitment and enrollment rates, improve trial efficiency, and decrease dropout rates and trial delays. We add to this literature by suggesting that patients perceive teleconsent as similar to in-person consent, suggesting this is a feasible and acceptable substitution for in-person consent in multisite, decentralized trials. Future work should include patient perspectives from a larger, more diverse group of participants.

E-Consent-a guide to maintain recruitment in clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed daunting challenges when conducting clinical research. Adopting new technologies such as remote electronic consent (e-Consent) can help overcome them. However, guidelines for e-Consent implementation in ongoing clinical trials are currently lacking. The NeuroSAFE PROOF trial is a randomized clinical trial evaluating the role of frozen section analysis during RARP for prostate cancer. In response to the COVID-19 crisis, recruitment was halted, and a remote e-Consent solution was designed. The aim of this paper is to describe the process of implementation, impact on recruitment rate, and patients' experience using e-Consent. METHODS: A substantial amendment of the protocol granted the creation of a remote e-Consent framework based on the REDCap environment, following the structure and content of the already approved paper consent form. Although e-Consent obviated the need for in-person meeting, there was nonetheless counselling sessions performed interactively online. This new pathway offered continuous support to patients through remote consultations. The whole process was judged to be compliant with regulatory requirements before implementation. RESULTS: Before the first recruitment suspension, NeuroSAFE PROOF was recruiting an average of 9 patients per month. After e-Consent implementation, 63 new patients (4/month) have been enrolled despite a second lockdown, none of whom would have been recruited using the old methods given restrictions on face-to-face consultations. Patients have given positive feedback on the use of the platform. Limited troubleshooting has been required after implementation. CONCLUSION: Remote e-Consent-based recruitment was critical for the continuation of the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial during the COVID-19 pandemic. The described pathway complies with ethical and regulatory guidelines for informed consent, while minimizing face-to-face interactions that increase the risk of COVID-19 transmission. This guide will help researchers integrate e-Consent to ongoing or planned clinical trials while uncertainty about the course of the pandemic continues. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NeuroSAFE PROOF trial NCT03317990 . Registered on 23 October 2017. Regional Ethics Committee reference 17/LO/1978.

Comparing a Multimedia Digital Informed Consent Tool With Traditional Paper-Based Methods: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The traditional informed consent (IC) process rarely emphasizes research participants' comprehension of medical information, leaving them vulnerable to unknown risks and consequences associated with procedures or studies. OBJECTIVE: This paper explores how we evaluated the feasibility of a digital health tool called Virtual Multimedia Interactive Informed Consent (VIC) for advancing the IC process and compared the results with traditional paper-based methods of IC. METHODS: Using digital health and web-based coaching, we developed the VIC tool that uses multimedia and other digital features to improve the current IC process. The tool was developed on the basis of the user-centered design process and Mayer's cognitive theory of multimedia learning. This study is a randomized controlled trial that compares the feasibility of VIC with standard paper consent to understand the impact of interactive digital consent. Participants were recruited from the Winchester Chest Clinic at Yale New Haven Hospital in New Haven, Connecticut, and healthy individuals were recruited from the community using fliers. In this coordinator-assisted trial, participants were randomized to complete the IC process using VIC on the iPad or with traditional paper consent. The study was conducted at the Winchester Chest Clinic, and the outcomes were self-assessed through coordinator-administered questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 50 participants were recruited in the study (VIC, n=25; paper, n=25). The participants in both groups had high comprehension. VIC participants reported higher satisfaction, higher perceived ease of use, higher ability to complete the consent independently, and shorter perceived time to complete the consent process. CONCLUSIONS: The use of dynamic, interactive audiovisual elements in VIC may improve participants' satisfaction and facilitate the IC process. We believe that using VIC in an ongoing, real-world study rather than a hypothetical study improved the reliability of our findings, which demonstrates VIC's potential to improve research participants' comprehension and the overall process of IC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02537886; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02537886.

Sharing of Clinical Trial Data and Samples: The Cancer Patient Perspective.

Introduction: Today, many initiatives and papers are devoted to clinical trial data (and to a lesser extent sample) sharing. Journal editors, pharmaceutical companies, funding agencies, governmental organizations, regulators, and clinical investigators have been debating the legal, ethical, and social implications of clinical data and sample sharing for several years. However, only little research has been conducted to unveil the patient perspective. Aim: To substantiate the current debate, we aimed to explore the attitudes of patients toward the re-use of clinical trial samples and data and to determine how they would prefer to be involved in this process. Materials and Methods: Sixteen in-depth interviews were conducted with cancer patients currently participating in a clinical trial. Results: This study indicates a general willingness of cancer patients participating in a clinical trial to allow re-use of their clinical trial data and/or samples by the original research team, and a generally open approach to share data and/or samples with other research teams, but some would like to be informed in this case. Despite divergent opinions about how patients prefer to be engaged, ranging from passive donors up to those explicitly wanting more control, participants expressed positive opinions toward technical solutions that allow indicating their preferences. Conclusion: Patients were open to sharing and re-use of data and samples to advance medical research but opinions varied on the level of patient involvement and the need for re-consent. A stratified approach for consent that allows individualization of data and sample sharing preferences may be useful, yet the implementation of such an approach warrants further research.

Does an interactive trust-enhanced electronic consent improve patient experiences when asked to share their health records for research? A randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: In the context of patient broad consent for future research uses of their identifiable health record data, we compare the effectiveness of interactive trust-enhanced e-consent, interactive-only e-consent, and standard e-consent (no interactivity, no trust enhancement). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized trial was conducted involving adult participants making a scheduled primary care visit. Participants were randomized into 1 of the 3 e-consent conditions. Primary outcomes were patient-reported satisfaction with and subjective understanding of the e-consent. Secondary outcomes were objective knowledge, perceived voluntariness, trust in medical researchers, consent decision, and time spent using the application. Outcomes were assessed immediately after use of the e-consent and at 1-week follow-up. RESULTS: Across all conditions, participants (N = 734) reported moderate-to-high satisfaction with consent (mean 4.3 of 5) and subjective understanding (79.1 of 100). Over 94% agreed to share their health record data. No statistically significant differences in outcomes were observed between conditions. Irrespective of condition, black participants and those with lower education reported lower satisfaction, subjective understanding, knowledge, perceived voluntariness, and trust in medical researchers, as well as spent more time consenting. CONCLUSIONS: A large majority of patients were willing to share their identifiable health records for research, and they reported positive consent experiences. However, incorporating optional additional information and messages designed to enhance trust in the research process did not improve consent experiences. To improve poorer consent experiences of racial and ethnic minority participants and those with lower education, other novel consent technologies and processes may be valuable. (An Interactive Patient-Centered Consent for Research Using Medical Records; NCT03063268).

Electronic Informed Consent to Facilitate Recruitment of Pregnant Women Into Research.

Methods to obtain informed consent digitally or electronically may increase the participation of racially and geographically diverse pregnant women in prospective research, which is essential to improve the evidence base for maternity care. We evaluated the feasibility and utility of e-consent in the first year of a multiyear clinical trial involving pregnant women. Of the 86 women screened, 71 were eligible, 65 (93% of eligible) agreed to review the e-consent form, and 61 (86% of eligible) completed the e-consent process. Of the interested women who were sent the e-consent link, all were able to complete the e-consent process, even those who reported low health literacy. Women of all racial and ethnic groups were equally likely to consent, and the sample of women who consented was consistent with practice demographics. E-consent is feasible and easy to use with pregnant women and may expedite enrollment of a representative sample.

Patient preferences toward an interactive e-consent application for research using electronic health records.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess patient perceptions of using an interactive electronic consent (e-consent) application when deciding whether or not to grant broad consent for research use of their identifiable electronic health record (EHR) information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this qualitative study, we conducted a series of 42 think-aloud interviews with 32 adults. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach. RESULTS: We identified themes related to patient preferences, reservations, and mixed attitudes toward consenting electronically; low- and high-information-seeking behavior; and an emphasis on reassuring information, such as data protections and prohibitions against sharing data with pharmaceutical companies. Participants expressed interest in the types of information contained in their EHRs, safeguards protecting EHR data, and specifics on studies that might use their EHR data. DISCUSSION: This study supports the potential value of interactive e-consent applications that allow patients to customize their consent experience. This study also highlights that some people have concerns about e-consent platforms and desire more detailed information about administrative processes and safeguards that protect EHR data used in research. CONCLUSION: This study contributes new insights on how e-consent applications could be designed to ensure that patients' information needs are met when seeking consent for research use of health record information. Also, this study offers a potential electronic approach to meeting the new Common Rule requirement that consent documents contain a "concise and focused" presentation of key information followed by more details.

Blockchain protocols in clinical trials: Transparency and traceability of consent.

Clinical trial consent for protocols and their revisions should be transparent for patients and traceable for stakeholders. Our goal is to implement a process allowing for collection of patients' informed consent, which is bound to protocol revisions, storing and tracking the consent in a secure, unfalsifiable and publicly verifiable way, and enabling the sharing of this information in real time. For that, we build a consent workflow using a trending technology called Blockchain. This is a distributed technology that brings a built-in layer of transparency and traceability. From a more general and prospective point of view, we believe Blockchain technology brings a paradigmatical shift to the entire clinical research field. We designed a Proof-of-Concept protocol consisting of time-stamping each step of the patient's consent collection using Blockchain, thus archiving and historicising the consent through cryptographic validation in a securely unfalsifiable and transparent way. For each protocol revision, consent was sought again.  We obtained a single document, in an open format, that accounted for the whole consent collection process: a time-stamped consent status regarding each version of the protocol. This document cannot be corrupted and can be checked on any dedicated public website. It should be considered a robust proof of data. However, in a live clinical trial, the authentication system should be strengthened to remove the need for third parties, here trial stakeholders, and give participative control to the peer users. In the future, the complex data flow of a clinical trial could be tracked by using Blockchain, which core functionality, named Smart Contract, could help prevent clinical trial events not occurring in the correct chronological order, for example including patients before they consented or analysing case report form data before freezing the database. Globally, Blockchain could help with reliability, security, transparency and could be a consistent step toward reproducibility.