From paper to screen: regulatory and operational considerations for modernizing the informed consent process.

Electronic platforms provide an opportunity to improve the informed consent (IC) process by permitting elements shown to increase research participant understanding and satisfaction, such as graphics, self-pacing, meaningful engagement, and access to additional information on demand. However, including these elements can pose operational and regulatory challenges for study teams and institutional review boards (IRBs) responsible for the ethical conduct and oversight of research. We examined the experience of two study teams at Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers who chose to move from a paper-based IC process to an electronic informed consent (eIC) process to highlight some of these complexities and explore how IRBs and study teams can navigate them. Here, we identify the key regulations that should be considered when developing and using an eIC process as well as some of the operational considerations eIC presents related to IRB review and how they can be addressed.

Informed Consent in Two Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers: Insights From Research Coordinators.

Background: Informed consent (IC) is critical to performing ethical research. Unfortunately, the IC process and supporting IC forms are frequently burdensome and do not necessarily meet the informational needs of participants. The intersecting legal and ethical challenges of obtaining IC from individuals with memory or cognitive deficits further exacerbate existing IC shortcomings. For this reason, study coordinators play a critical role in facilitating the IC process in Alzheimer's disease (AD) research. To identify opportunities to improve how IC is obtained in AD research, we examined the IC process from the perspectives of study coordinators at two Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers (ADRC). Methods: We performed semi-structured interviews with 15 study coordinators from two ADRC sites detailing their experience obtaining IC. Interviews were conducted in private, recorded, transcribed, and independently coded using the constant comparative method of grounded theory. Key themes were explored as they emerged. Results: Coordinators reported overall satisfaction with the IC process. However, many reported difficulties maintaining participant attention, explaining complex procedures, and addressing medical misinformation. Although the centers use site-specific consent forms, coordinators at both centers stressed that their IC is too long and the supporting IC forms are too complicated. Coordinators indicated modifying the IC process to the perceived needs of individual participants. Adaptations reported include altering the cadence and vocabulary they employ, using supplemental materials, varying the order of IC topics, and limiting the depth of information presented. Conclusion: A qualitative analysis of interviews with study coordinators reveals opportunities to improve how we obtain IC in AD research. These insights will be used to create an electronic informed consent (eConsent) designed to boost engagement, enhance trust, and improve understanding by supporting participants' direct agency in the IC process.