What Is "Key Information"? Consideration of the Reasons People Do or Do Not Take Part in Research.

We performed a qualitative review of 50 consent forms posted on Clinicaltrials.gov, examining the content of key information sections. We found that key information disclosures are typically focused on procedures, risks, potential benefits, and alternatives. Drawing upon reviews of the large literature examining the reasons people do or do not take part in research, we propose that these disclosures should be based more directly on what we know to be the real reasons why people choose to take part or refuse participation. We propose key information language for consideration by researchers and institutional review boards.

Understanding the language barriers to translating informed consent documents for maternal health trials in Zambia: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Providing comprehensible information is essential to the process of valid informed consent. Recruitment materials designed by sponsoring institutions in English-speaking, high-income countries are commonly translated for use in global health studies in other countries; however, key concepts are often missed, misunderstood or 'lost in translation'. The aim of this study was to explore the language barriers to informed consent, focusing on the challenges of translating recruitment materials for maternal health studies into Zambian languages. DESIGN: We used a qualitative approach, which incorporated a multistakeholder workshop (11 participants), in-depth interviews with researchers and translators (8 participants) and two community-based focus groups with volunteers from community advisory boards (20 participants). Content analysis was used to identify terms commonly occurring in recruitment materials prior to the workshop. The framework analysis approach was used to analyse interview data, and a simple inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyse focus group data. SETTING: The study was based in Lusaka, Zambia. RESULTS: The workshop highlighted difficulties in translating research terms and pregnancy-specific terms, as well as widespread concern that current templates are too long, use overly formal language and are designed with little input from local teams. Framework analysis of in-depth interviews identified barriers to participant understanding relating to design and development of recruitment materials, language, local context and communication styles. Focus group participants confirmed these findings and suggested potential solutions to ensure the language and content of recruitment materials can be better understood. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that the way in which recruitment materials are currently designed, translated and disseminated may not enable potential trial participants to fully understand the information provided. Instead of using overly complex institutional templates, recruitment materials should be created through an iterative and interactive process that provides truly comprehensible information in a format appropriate for its intended participants.

Development of a New Tool for Writing Research Key Information in Plain Language.

BACKGROUND: The complexity of research informed consent forms makes it hard for potential study participants to make informed consent decisions. In response, new rules for human research protection require informed consent forms to begin with a key information section that potential study participants can read and understand. This research study builds on exiting guidance on how to write research key information using plain language. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a valid and reliable tool to evaluate and improve the readability, understandability, and actionability of the key information section on research informed consent forms. METHODS: We developed an initial list of measures to include on the tool through literature review; established face and content validity of measures with expert input; conducted four rounds of reliability testing with four groups of reviewers; and established construct validity with potential research participants. KEY RESULTS: We identified 87 candidate measures via literature review. After expert review, we included 23 items on the initial tool. Twenty-four raters conducted 4 rounds of reliability testing on 10 informed consent forms. After each round, we revised or eliminated items to improve agreement. In the final round of testing, 18 items demonstrated substantial inter-rater agreement per Fleiss' Kappa (average = .73) and Gwet's AC1 (average = .77). Intra-rater agreement was substantial per Cohen's Kappa (average = .74) and almost perfect per Gwet's AC1 (average = 0.84). Focus group feedback (N = 16) provided evidence suggesting key information was easy to read when rated as such by the Readability, Understandability and Actionability of Key Information (RUAKI) Indicator. CONCLUSION: The RUAKI Indicator is an 18-item tool with evidence of validity and reliability investigators can use to write the key information section on their informed consent forms that potential study participants can read, understand, and act on to make informed decisions. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2024;8(1):e29-e37.].

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Research informed consent forms describe key information about research studies. People need this information to decide if they want to be in a study or not. A helpful form begins with a short, easy-to-read key information section. This study created a tool researchers can use to write the key information about their research people can read, understand, and use.

Returning Clinically Relevant Research Results to Participants: Guidelines for Investigators and the IRB.

In 2019, the revised Common Rule required informed consent documents for research to include a statement about whether clinically relevant research results would be returned to research participants. While there are national discussions regarding the return of results, these do not provide specific guidance about how institutional review boards (IRBs) should address this issue. Through a year-long process involving IRB staff and leadership, science and bioethics faculty members, community IRB members, and others, Indiana University's human research protection program created a framework that offers a clear categorization of types of results for researchers to consider returning, provides language for informed consent documents, and describes an active but intentionally limited role for the IRB. In this article, we describe this framework and its rationale as a model for other universities and, more generally, as a model for balancing the need to protect human subjects with efforts to limit the burdens on researchers and the IRB.

"Uninformed consent" in clinical trials with cancer patients: A qualitative analysis of patients' and support persons' communication experiences and needs.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients are often overwhelmed when being informed about clinical trials. However, there is a lack of evidence-based strategies to improve physician-patient communication in this area. This study assessed the experiences and needs of cancer patients and their support persons (SPs) during the informed consent (IC) process prior to participation in clinical trials. METHODS: 17 semi-structured interviews with cancer patients and their SP were conducted and analysed using a framework analysis. RESULTS: Most respondents reported feeling well informed about the clinical trial. However, core aspects of the study were often not understood highlighting a dissonance between perceived and actual recall and understanding. Many participants trusted that the trial recommended was the best available care and only skimmed the consent form or did not read it at all. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first German study to analyse both cancer patients' and SPs' perspectives on IC processes. Although many feel well informed, our results suggest a significant gap in recall and understanding of core components of clinical trials which hinders IC. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Further interventional research is required to improve the consent processes prior to clinical trials in order to provide optimal, patient-centred care.

Assessing the Readability of Clinical Trial Consent Forms for Surgical Specialties.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the readability of surgical clinical trial consent forms and compare readability across surgical specialties. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of surgical clinical trial consent forms available on ClinicalTrials.gov to quantitatively evaluate readability, word count, and length variations among different specialties. The analysis was performed between November 2022 and January 2023. A total of 386 surgical clinical trial consent forms across 14 surgical specialties were included. RESULTS: The main outcomes were language complexity (measured using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level), number of words (measured as word count), time to read (measured at reading speeds of 240 per min), and readability (measured by Flesch Reading Ease Score, Gunning Frog Index, Simple Measures of Gobbledygook Index, FORCAST, and Automated Readability Index). The surgical consent forms were a mean (standard deviation) of 2626 (1668) words long, with a mean of 12:53 min to read at 240 words per min. None of the surgical specialties had an average readability level of sixth grade or lower across all six indices, and only 16 out of 386 (4%) clinical trials met the recommended reading level. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in reading grade level between surgical specialties based on the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Flesch Reading Ease indices. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that current surgical clinical trial consent documents are too long and complex, exceeding the recommended sixth-grade reading level. Ensuring readable clinical trial consent forms is not only ethically responsible but also crucial for protecting patients' rights and well-being by facilitating informed decision-making.

Randomized study of two different consent procedures on recall: a study within a digital alcohol intervention trial.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals' comprehension of the information provided in consent forms should fundamentally influence whether to participate initially in a study and later whether to remain a participant. Existing evidence, however, suggests that participants do not thoroughly read, comprehend, or recall the information in consent forms. This study aimed to better understand how well participants recalled trial procedure information in the consent materials they received prior to taking part in a trial of a digital alcohol intervention. METHOD: This study was nested within an online effectiveness trial. The study included a contrast between two layout approaches to present the trial procedure information: one where all materials were shown on the same page (One page) and one where participants had to click on links to get materials for certain parts of the study information (Active request). Recall of trial procedures was measured 2 months post-randomization with four questions. Participants were also asked to leave a comment after each question. RESULT: Of the 2437 individuals who registered interest in the parent trial, 1197 were randomized to One page and 1240 were randomized to Active request. Approximately 90% consented to participate and 53% of the participants responded to the recall questionnaire. Contrasting the consent layout showed no marked differences between groups in three out of the four questions on recall of trial procedures. There was, however, evidence that recall of aspects of how personal data would be handled during the trial did differ between the two groups, with the Active request group reporting less recall than the One page group. Free-text comments were used to give nuance to the quantitative analysis. CONCLUSION: Participants exposed to different layouts of trial procedure information exhibited varying levels of information recall 2 months after consenting. The findings highlight the influence of the presentation of consent forms, which should be given attention when designing trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN48317451. Registered 6 December 2018, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN48317451.

An absence of translated consent forms limits oncologic clinical trial enrollment for limited English proficiency participants.

OBJECTIVES: A lack of diversity amongst participants in cancer clinical trials has raised scrutiny over the past decade. Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) are further excluded. One modifiable reason for low LEP participation is a lack of non-English consent forms. METHODS: We queried the clinical trials registry database at an academic hospital serving a predominantly Spanish-speaking patient population. Clinical trials related to gynecology oncology were evaluated for the availability of fully translated Spanish consent forms, the racial and ethnic identification of enrolled patients, and the number of signed Spanish consents. Enrolment data was compared before and after 2019, when institutional financial support for document translation was withdrawn. RESULTS: Sixteen gynecologic oncology clinical trials were opened between 2014 and 2022, with 10 trials enrolling 128 patients. Eight trials opened prior to 2019, all with fully translated consent forms. Seven of these trials enrolled 99 participants, 70% of whom identified as Hispanic and 60% who signed a Spanish consent. Eight trials opened after 2019 and one had a fully translated consent form. Three of the trials enrolled 29 participants, with 10% of subjects identifying as Hispanic and none signing a Spanish consent form. CONCLUSIONS: There was a decrease in fully translated clinical trial consent forms for gynecologic oncology studies following the loss of subsidized translation services in our single institution with a predominantly LEP population. This correlated with a decrease in enrollment of Hispanic subjects. To increase enrollment of diverse participants, including those with LEP, simple actions such as fully translating consent forms would help maintain equity in research conduct and improve clinical outcomes through trial involvement.

Content and Readability of US Procedure Consent Forms.

This qualitative study uses data from the American Hospital Association National Survey Database to analyze the content and readability of a sample of US procedures consent forms.

Towards objectivity in ethical assessment: legibility as part of informed consent form comprehension.

BACKGROUND: The experience on informed consent form (ICF) readability at the Research Ethics Committee of the National Institute of Cancerology of Mexico (INCan) is described. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the readability of a randomly-selected sample of ICFs submitted for review between March 1, 2022 and March 31, 2023. The number of pages, the time the reader takes to read the text and the level of education necessary to understand it were determined. RESULTS: More than half the ICFs from internal investigations were shown to be somewhat or very difficult to read; the level of education required to understand them was up to 9.9 years, and the reading time was short. The ICF texts from international multicenter investigations were aimed at an average education level of 5.5 years and had normal readability. Most ICFs from external trials require a reading time of more than 60 minutes per ICF. CONCLUSION: It is necessary to have tools that provide objectivity to the evaluation of ICFs under investigation by ethics committees, which should be indicators of their comprehension, such as readability of the documents.

ANTECEDENTES: Se describe la experiencia sobre la legibilidad de los formatos de consentimiento informado (FCI) del Comité de Ética en Investigación del Instituto Nacional de Cancerología de México. OBJETIVO: Evaluar la legibilidad de una muestra seleccionada aleatoriamente de FCI sometidos para revisión entre el 1 de marzo de 2022 y el 31 de marzo de 2023. Se determinó el número de páginas, el tiempo que el lector invierte para leer el texto y el grado de escolaridad necesario para comprenderlo. RESULTADOS: Más de la mitad de FCI de investigaciones internas mostraron ser algo o muy difíciles de leer, la escolaridad necesaria para comprenderlos fue hasta de 9.9 años y el tiempo de lectura fue corto. Los textos de los FCI de investigaciones internacionales multicéntricas estuvieron dirigidos a un nivel escolar promedio de 5.5 años y tuvieron una legibilidad normal. La mayor parte de los ensayos externos requiere un tiempo de lectura superior a los 60 minutos por FCI. CONCLUSIÓN: Es necesario disponer de herramientas que den objetividad a la evaluación de los FCI en investigación por parte de los comités de ética y sean indicadores de su comprensión, tales como la legibilidad de los documentos.

Machine learning-based donor permission extraction from informed consent documents.

BACKGROUND: With more clinical trials are offering optional participation in the collection of bio-specimens for biobanking comes the increasing complexity of requirements of informed consent forms. The aim of this study is to develop an automatic natural language processing (NLP) tool to annotate informed consent documents to promote biorepository data regulation, sharing, and decision support. We collected informed consent documents from several publicly available sources, then manually annotated them, covering sentences containing permission information about the sharing of either bio-specimens or donor data, or conducting genetic research or future research using bio-specimens or donor data. RESULTS: We evaluated a variety of machine learning algorithms including random forest (RF) and support vector machine (SVM) for the automatic identification of these sentences. 120 informed consent documents containing 29,204 sentences were annotated, of which 1250 sentences (4.28%) provide answers to a permission question. A support vector machine (SVM) model achieved a F-1 score of 0.95 on classifying the sentences when using a gold standard, which is a prefiltered corpus containing all relevant sentences. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the feasibility of using machine learning tools to classify permission-related sentences in informed consent documents.

Evaluation of Informed Consent with Teach-Back and Audio Assistance to Improve Willingness to Participate in a Clinical Trial Among Underrepresented Minorities: A Randomized Pilot Trial.

The informed consent form (ICF) is intended to assure that subject participation in research studies is informed and voluntary. Yet, there is ample evidence that many subjects do not adequately understand the concepts and language in a clinical trial ICF, which may undermine their willingness to participate in a clinical trial. In a randomized setting, we compared a standard read-only ICF to an audio-assisted ICF with or without teach-back. We found that audio-assisted ICFs significantly improved willingness to participate in a mock clinical trial among our sample of primarily African-American participants.

Can we do it better? Consent in dentoalveolar surgery.

Obtaining informed consent is essential for any medical or dental procedure. Dentoalveolar surgery poses numerous risks due to the complex environment and anatomy of the oral cavity. Failure to seek and correctly document consent may lead to claims in negligence, as demonstrated by the increasing litigation in OMFS. We audited dentoalveolar surgery consent forms at two different UK OMFS units and found that many forms failed to document important material risks associated with procedures. In an attempt to improve the consent process, we developed a standardised form containing a list of risks for dentoalveolar surgery that can be affixed to the consent form. We suggest other OMFS units adopt this form to standardise the consent process and optimise patient care while protecting clinicians from medico-legal claims.

Consent document translation expense hinders inclusive clinical trial enrolment.

Patients from historically under-represented racial and ethnic groups are enrolled in cancer clinical trials at disproportionately low rates in the USA1-3. As these patients often have limited English proficiency4-7, we hypothesized that one barrier to their inclusion is the cost to investigators of translating consent documents. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated more than 12,000 consent events at a large cancer centre and assessed whether patients requiring translated consent documents would sign consent documents less frequently in studies lacking industry sponsorship (for which the principal investigator pays the translation costs) than for industry-sponsored studies (for which the translation costs are covered by the sponsor). Here we show that the proportion of consent events for patients with limited English proficiency in studies not sponsored by industry was approximately half of that seen in industry-sponsored studies. We also show that among those signing consent documents, the proportion of consent documents translated into the patient's primary language in studies without industry sponsorship was approximately half of that seen in industry-sponsored studies. The results suggest that the cost of consent document translation in trials not sponsored by industry could be a potentially modifiable barrier to the inclusion of patients with limited English proficiency.

Posting of clinical trial results and other critical information from completed medicines trials on ClinicalTrials.gov.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials transparency requires trial registration and the posting of results on a public register. US regulations also require the posting of protocols and statistical analysis plans (SAPs). For US Federal agency funded trials to be started on or after 21 January 2019, informed consent forms (ICFs) must also be posted. Posting these documents is not mandatory in other countries. We aimed to assess compliance with US regulations of trials conducted in the US or in other countries with respect to ICFs, protocols, SAPs, and results. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis (27 April 2023) comprised completed medicines trials to be started on or after 21 January 2019 registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Trial data were registered by funder type (i.e., 'US federal agencies', industry, and 'all others') and development phase. RESULTS: Of 5,584 trials, 40% were conducted solely in the US. 47% and 12% of US and non-US trials had posted results. Some 40% of US trials had posted protocols and SAPs as did 9% of trials conducted in other countries. Only 10% (US) and 2% (other countries) of trials had posted ICFs. When the margin of the last 2 and 12 months after primary completion date were considered in the analysis, ICF posting rate did not change, but posting results increased to 64% for US trials. 'US Federal agencies' funded trials were significantly more likely to post ICFs than industry [OR 23.9 (12.5-45.7; <.001)] or 'all others' [OR 3.16 (1.79-5.56; <.001)]. CONCLUSION: Future interventions should be considered to encourage timely posting of trial results and information.

Continuous quality improvement: reducing informed consent form signing errors.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to ethical guidelines and regulations and protecting and respecting the dignity and autonomy of participants by obtaining a valid informed consent form (ICF) prior to participation in research are crucial; The subjects did not add signatures next to the corrections made to signatures or dates on the ICF, Multiple signatures in other fields, ICF missing/missing signature, Incorrect ICF version Signed after modification, Correction tape used to correct signature, Impersonated signature, Non-research-member signature, however, ICFs are often not properly completed, which must be addressed. This study analyzed ICF signing errors and implemented measures to reduce or prevent these errors. METHODS: We used the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycle to help improve the correctness and validity of ICF signing. RESULTS: Interim and final reports from January 2016 to February 2020 including 363 ICFs were studied. The total proportion of correct ICF signatures (200, 83.3%) following the PDCA intervention was significantly higher than that before the intervention (P < 0.05). Analysis of the types of signing error demonstrated that signature errors were significantly reduced after the intervention, particularly for subjects did not add signatures next to the corrections made to signatures or dates on the ICF (16, 6.7%) and impersonated signature (0; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The proportions of other error types-multiple signatures in other fields, missing or unsigned ICF, incorrect signature order, incorrect ICF version, use of correction tape to correct signature, and non-medical profession members signing the ICF-did not differ significantly.

Creation of a risk of harms informed consent form for dry needling: A nominal group technique.

BACKGROUND: When consenting patients to dry needling treatment, it is necessary to inform patients of potential risks of harms. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify elements and framework for an Informed Consent (IC) risk of harm statement to improve patient decision-making. DESIGN: A virtual Nominal Group Technique (vNGT) methodology was used to achieve consensus among participants to identify what needs to be on a consent form, how it should be framed, and what it should state so patients understand the true risks. METHODS: Eligible participants were identified as one of four groups: legal expert, policy expert, dry needling expert, or patient. The vNGT session consisted of 5 rounds of idea generation and final consensus voting which lasted for 2 h. RESULTS: Five individuals consented to participate. Of the 27 original ideas, 22 reached consensus including ones specifically related to a risk of harms statement: identifying risks and discomforts, identify different sensations, and using a classification to order risks by severity. Consensus was achieved with percent agreement of ≥ 80%. The constructed risk of harm statement had a reading level of grade 7 and provided a list of stratified risks associated with dry needling. CONCLUSION: The generated risk of harm statement can be incorporated on IC forms that require disclosure of risks in both the clinical and research setting. Additionally, further elements were identified by panel participants about defining the framework for an IC form outside of the risk of harm statement. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT05560100 (29/09/22).