Patient accrual and understanding of informed consent in a two-stage consent design.

BACKGROUND: We previously introduced the concept of "two-stage" (or "just-in-time") informed consent for randomized trials with usual care control. We argued that conducting consent in two stages-splitting information about research procedures from information about the experimental intervention-would reduce the decisional anxiety, confusion, and information overload commonly associated with informed consent. We implemented two-stage consent in a low-stakes randomized trial of a mindfulness meditation intervention for procedural distress in patients undergoing prostate biopsy. Here, we report accrual rates and patient understanding of the consent process. METHODS: Patients approached for consent for the biopsy trial were asked to complete the standard "Quality of Informed Consent" questionnaire to assess their knowledge and understanding of the trial. RESULTS: Accrual was excellent with 108 of 110 (98%) patients approached for consent signing first-stage consent. All 51 patients randomized to the experimental arm and who later presented for biopsy signed second-stage consent and received the mindfulness intervention. Quality of Informed Consent data were available for 48 patients assigned to the mindfulness treatment arm and 44 controls. The mean Quality of Informed Consent score was similar in the meditation and control arms with and overall mean of 75 (95% confidence interval = 74-76) for the knowledge section and 86 (95% confidence interval = 81-90) for understanding, comparable to the normative scores of 80 and 88. On further analysis and patient interview, two of the Quality of Informed Consent questions were found to be misleading in the context of a two-stage consent study for a mindfulness intervention. Excluding these questions increased knowledge scores to 88 (95% confidence interval = 87-90). CONCLUSION: We found promising data that two-stage consent facilitated accrual without compromising patient understanding of randomized trials or compliance with allocated treatment. Further research is needed incorporating randomized comparison of two-stage consent to standard consent approaches, measuring patient anxiety and distress as an outcome, using suitable modifications to the Quality of Informed Consent questionnaire and trials with higher stakes.

Motivations and Decision-Making of Adult Sickle Cell Patients in High-Risk Clinical Research.

Potentially curative but high-risk trials of gene therapy or stem cell transplantation (PBSCT) for sickle cell disease (SCD) pose new opportunities for adults with SCD, many of whom experience significant disease burden and complications with few treatment options, as well as stigma and disparities in care. We explored motivations and decision-making processes of enrollees and decliners of such trials. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 20 enrollees and 6 decliners. Interviews explored participants' SCD experiences, motivations, and decision-making about trial participation, understanding of research-related information, and retrospective reflections. Interviews were analyzed with content analysis. Most identified the purpose of research, risks, and uncertainties of participation. Both enrollees and decliners described deliberative weighing of study risks and potential benefits (especially the prospect of a cure), with heavy factoring of their SCD status, experiences, and desire for a better life. Despite the influence of spirituality/religion and support of family and friends, all described the decision about participation as their own. In some patients, the primary outcome status defined by the trial did not match the patients' perceived outcomes. Patients with negative experiences expressed a desire for greater emphasis on risks and possible outcomes during informed consent. This cohort of adults with SCD were thoughtfully deliberative in their decisions about gene therapy or PBSCT trials. Future participants' decision-making may be enhanced by emphasizing that "successful" scientific outcomes can still involve complications or symptoms and be facilitated by referrals to former research participants and anticipatory discussions.

Understanding people's 'unrealistic optimism' about clinical research participation.

BACKGROUND: Researchers worry that patients in early-phase research experience unrealistic optimism about benefits and risks of participation. The standard measure of unrealistic optimism is the Comparative Risk/Benefit Assessment (CRBA) questionnaire, which asks people to estimate their chances of an outcome relative to others in similar situations. Such a comparative framework may not be a natural way for research participants to think about their chances. OBJECTIVE: To examine how people interpret questions measuring unrealistic optimism and how their interpretations are associated with their responses. METHODS: Using an early-phase cancer trial vignette, we administered the CRBA to 297 adults from the general public. They estimated their comparative chances of risk and benefit (7-point scale: -3 less likely to +3 more likely), then provided rationales for their estimates. RESULTS: For both CRBA benefit and risk questions, about 50% of respondents chose 0 (the 'correct' response of 'average likelihood'), and 50% chose a non-0 response. Respondents' rationales for their estimates showed that overall only about 40%-44% gave comparative rationales, indicating that they interpreted the CRBA as intended. 68.7% of respondents who gave the 'correct' 0 rating gave comparative rationales, whereas only 11.6% of respondents who gave non-0 ratings did so. A similar trend was seen for chances of risk (p<0.001 for both). CONCLUSION: Research participants may not understand comparative benefit and risk questions as intended; attributions of unrealistic optimism may require additional evidence that the respondents' estimates are intended to be comparative.

Ethical Challenges of Risk, Informed Consent, and Posttrial Responsibilities in Human Research With Neural Devices: A Review.

Importance: Developing more and better diagnostic and therapeutic tools for central nervous system disorders is an ethical imperative. Human research with neural devices is important to this effort and a critical focus of the National Institutes of Health Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. Despite regulations and standard practices for conducting ethical research, researchers and others seek more guidance on how to ethically conduct neural device studies. This article draws on, reviews, specifies, and interprets existing ethical frameworks, literature, and subject matter expertise to address 3 specific ethical challenges in neural devices research: analysis of risk, informed consent, and posttrial responsibilities to research participants. Observations: Research with humans proceeds after careful assessment of the risks and benefits. In assessing whether risks are justified by potential benefits in both invasive and noninvasive neural device research, the following categories of potential risks should be considered: those related to surgery, hardware, stimulation, research itself, privacy and security, and financial burdens. All 3 of the standard pillars of informed consent-disclosure, capacity, and voluntariness-raise challenges in neural device research. Among these challenges are the need to plan for appropriate disclosure of information about atypical and emerging risks of neural devices, a structured evaluation of capacity when that is in doubt, and preventing patients from feeling unduly pressured to participate. Researchers and funders should anticipate participants' posttrial needs linked to study participation and take reasonable steps to facilitate continued access to neural devices that benefit participants. Possible mechanisms for doing so are explored here. Depending on the study, researchers and funders may have further posttrial responsibilities. Conclusions and Relevance: This ethical analysis and points to consider may assist researchers, institutional review boards, funders, and others engaged in human neural device research.

Ethical Acceptability of Postrandomization Consent in Pragmatic Clinical Trials.

Importance: Pragmatic clinical trials that seek informed consent after randomization (ie, postrandomization consent) are increasingly used, but debate on ethics persists because control arm patients are not specifically informed about the trials and randomization occurs before consent for the trials. The public's attitude toward postrandomization consent trials is unknown, but the way the trials are described could bias people's views. Objectives: To assess the attitudes of the US general public toward postrandomization informed consent for pragmatic trials and to measure potential framing and other factors associated with those attitudes. Design, Setting, and Participants: An online, 2 × 2 experimental survey (fielded between February 23 and April 3, 2018) portraying 4 scenarios of postrandomization informed consent (with prior broad consent for medical record use) was conducted. These scenarios included traditional randomized clinical trial language framing vs alternative framing in a high-stakes trial (ie, survival in leukemia) or low-stakes trial (ie, blood glucose level in diabetes). A total of 3793 individuals invited to participate were part of an existing panel representative of the US general public (GfK KnowledgePanel). Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of participants who would recommend that an ethics review board approve a postrandomization consent pragmatic trial. Results: A total of 2042 of 3739 invitees (54.6%) responded; after exclusion of 38 incomplete surveys, 2004 participants were included in the analysis. Of these, 997 (49.8%) were women, 1440 (71.9%) were white non-Hispanic, 199 (9.9%) were black non-Hispanic, and 233 (11.6%) were Hispanic. Mean (SD) age was 47.5 (17.4) years. Across scenarios, weighted data showed that 75.4% of the participants would recommend approval of the postrandomization consent pragmatic trial, 20.4% would probably not recommend approval, and 4.2% would definitely not recommend approval. Approval was not sensitive to framing language (traditional vs new framing in high-stakes scenario, 74.3% vs 76.8%, P = .40; in low-stakes scenario, 77.7% vs 72.9%, P = .10) or to the stakes (low vs high stakes in traditional framing, 77.7% vs 74.3%, P = .25; in new framing, 72.9% vs 76.8%, P = .18). Better understanding of the postrandomization consent design was associated with higher rate of approval (78.1% vs 65.0%, P = .002 for high-stakes scenario; 77.2% vs 64.9%, P = .004 for low-stakes scenario), especially among those with less education. However, opinions about personal involvement in the control arm were more cautious (range depending on scenario, 45.6%-59.7%) and sensitive to stakes but not to framing. Conclusions and Relevance: The public's generally high rate of approval of the ethics of postrandomization informed consent for pragmatic trial designs does not appear to be affected by whether postrandomization consent design is framed using traditional randomized clinical trial terminology, regardless of the stakes of the trial. Promoting better understanding of the design may increase its acceptance by the public.

Are therapeutic motivation and having one's own doctor as researcher sources of therapeutic misconception?

BACKGROUND: Desire for improvement in one's illness and having one's own doctor functioning as a researcher are thought to promote therapeutic misconception (TM), a phenomenon in which research subjects are said to conflate research with treatment. PURPOSE: To examine whether subjects' therapeutic motivation and own doctor functioning as researcher are associated with TM. METHODS: We interviewed 90 persons with advanced Parkinson's disease (PD) enrolled or intending to enrol in sham surgery controlled neurosurgical trials, using qualitative interviews. Subjects were compared by motivation (primarily therapeutic vs primarily altruistic or dually motivated by altruistic and therapeutic motivation), and by doctor status (own doctor as site investigator vs not) on the following: understanding of purpose of study; understanding of research procedures; perception of chance of direct benefit; and recollection and perceptions concerning the risks. RESULTS: 60% had primarily therapeutic motivation and 44% had their own doctor as the site investigator, but neither were generally associated with increased TM responses. Overall level of understanding of purpose and procedures of research were high. Subjects responded with generally high estimates of probability of direct benefit, but their rationales were personal and complex. The therapeutic-motivation group was more sensitive to risks. Five (5.6%) subjects provided incorrect answers to the question about purpose of research, and yet, showed excellent understanding of research procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In persons with PD involved in sham surgery clinical trials, being primarily motivated by desire for direct benefit to one's illness or having one's own doctor as the site investigator were not associated with greater TM responses.

Sham surgery controls in Parkinson's disease clinical trials: views of participants.

BACKGROUND: Sham surgery controls are increasingly used in neurosurgical clinical trials in Parkinson's disease (PD) but remain controversial. We interviewed participants of such trials, specifically examining their understanding and attitudes regarding sham surgery. METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with participants of 3 sham surgery-controlled trials for PD, focusing on their understanding of sham design, their reactions to it, its impact on decision making, and their understanding of posttrial availability of the experimental intervention and its impact on decisions to participate. RESULTS: All subjects (n = 90) understood the 2-arm design; most (86%) described the procedural differences between the arms accurately. Ninety-two percent referred to scientific or regulatory reasons as rationales for the sham control, with 62% specifically referring to the placebo effect. Ninety-one percent said posttrial availability of the experimental intervention had a strong (48%) or some (43%) influence on their decision to participate, but only 68% understood the conditions for posttrial availability. CONCLUSIONS: Most subjects in sham surgery-controlled PD trials comprehend the sham surgery design and its rationale. Although there is room for improvement, most subjects of sham surgery trials appear to be adequately informed.

Comparison of enrollees and decliners of Parkinson disease sham surgery trials.

Concerns have been raised that persons with serious illnesses participating in high-risk research, such as PD patients in sham surgery trials, have unrealistic expectations and are vulnerable to exploitation. A comparison of enrollees and decliners of such research may provide insights about the adequacy of decision making by potential subjects. We compared 61 enrollees and 10 decliners of two phase II neurosurgical intervention (i.e., cellular and gene transfer) trials for PD regarding their demographic and clinical status, perceptions and attitudes regarding research risks, potential direct benefit, and societal benefit, and perspectives on the various potential reasons for and against participation. In addition to bivariate analyses, a logistic regression model examined variables regarding risks and benefits as predictors of participation status. Enrollees perceived lower risk of harm while tolerating higher risk of harm and were more action oriented, but did not have more advanced disease. Both groups rated hope for benefit as a strong reason to participate, whereas the fact that the study's purpose was not solely to benefit them was rated as "not a reason" against participation. Hope for benefit and altruism were rated higher than expectation of benefit as reasons in favor of participation for both groups. Enrollees and decliners are different in their views and attitudes toward risk. Although both are attracted to research because of hopes of personal benefit, this hope is clearly distinguishable from an expectation of benefit and does not imply a failure to understand the main purpose of research.

Disclosing individual CDKN2A research results to melanoma survivors: interest, impact, and demands on researchers.

BACKGROUND: Whether to return individual research results from cancer genetics studies is widely debated, but little is known about how participants respond to results disclosure or about its time and cost burdens on investigators. METHODS: We recontacted participants at one site of a multicenter genetic epidemiologic study regarding their CDKN2A gene test results and implications for melanoma risk. Interested participants were disclosed their results by telephone and followed for 3 months. RESULTS: Among 39 patients approached, 27 were successfully contacted, and 19 (70% uptake) sought results, including three with mutations. Prior to disclosure, participants endorsed numerous benefits of receiving results (mean=7.7 of 9 posed), including gaining information relevant to their children's disease risk. Mean psychological well-being scores did not change from baseline, and no decreases to melanoma prevention behaviors were noted. Fifty-nine percent of participants reported that disclosure made participation in future research more likely. Preparation for disclosure required 40 minutes and $611 per recontact attempt. An additional 78 minutes and $68 was needed to disclose results. CONCLUSION: Cancer epidemiology research participants who received their individual genetic research results showed no evidence of psychological harm or false reassurance from disclosure and expressed strong trust in the accuracy of results. Burdens to our investigators were high, but protocols may differ in their demands and disclosure may increase participants' willingness to enroll in future studies. IMPACT: Providing individual study results to cancer genetics research participants poses potential challenges for investigators, but many participants desire and respond positively to this information.