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

ABSTRACT

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.