scholarly journals The Complex Maze of the Informed Consent Process: Helping to Improve Comprehension in Clinical Trial Participants with Alzheimer’s Disease

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 161-164
Author(s):  
Louis X. Wong ◽  
Gail M. Bloom ◽  
Bryant Chee
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Informed Consent Process ◽  
Consent Process ◽  
Complex Maze ◽  
Trial Participants

Telephone-based nursing intervention improves the effectiveness of the informed consent process in cancer clinical trials.

1996 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 984-996 ◽  
Author(s):  
N K Aaronson ◽  
E Visser-Pol ◽  
G H Leenhouts ◽  
M J Muller ◽  
A C van der Schot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Nursing Intervention ◽  
Informed Consent Process ◽  
Consent Process ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Oncology Nurse

PURPOSE Here we report the results of a randomized study undertaken to test the efficacy of a supplementary, telephone-based nursing intervention in increasing patients' awareness and understanding of the clinical trials in which they are asked to participate. METHODS During a 12-month period, 180 cancer patients who were approached to participate in a phase II or III clinical trial were randomized to undergo either of the following: (1) standard informed consent procedures based on verbal explanations from the treating physician plus written information (controls); or (2) standard informed consent procedures plus a supplementary, telephone-based contact with an oncology nurse (intervention). For purposes of evaluation, face-to-face interviews were conducted with all patients approximately 1 week after the informed consent process had been completed. RESULTS The two groups were comparable with regard to sociodemographic and clinical variables. Both groups had a high level of awareness of the diagnosis and of the nature and objectives of the proposed treatments. The intervention group was significantly (P < .01) better informed about the following: (1) the risks and side effects of treatment; (2) the clinical trial context of the treatment; (3) the objectives of the clinical trial; (4) where relevant, the use of randomization in allocating treatment; (5) the availability of alternative treatments; (6) the voluntary nature of participation; and (7) the right to withdraw from the clinical trial. The intervention did not have any significant effect on patients' anxiety levels or on rates of clinical trial participation. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with the intervention. CONCLUSION The use of a supplementary, telephone-based nursing intervention is a feasible and effective means to increase cancer patients' awareness and understanding of the salient issues that surround the clinical trials in which they are asked to participate.

Entering a Clinical Trial: Is It Right For You?–A randomized study of the Clinical Trials Video and its impact on the informed consent process

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9072-9072
Author(s):  
S. Hitchcock-Bryan ◽  
B. Hoffner ◽  
S. Joffe ◽  
M. Powell ◽  
C. Parker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Informed Consent Process ◽  
Consent Process ◽  
Provider Communication ◽  
Patient Provider Communication ◽  
Source Of Information

9072 Background: In an effort to improve the informed consent process for subjects considering participation in a clinical trial, we created an educational video: “Entering a Clinical Trial: Is it Right for You?” In this randomized study, we assessed the effect of the video on patients’ understanding and perceptions of clinical trials. We also assessed patient satisfaction with the video and how the video impacted decision-making and patient-provider communication. Methods: We recruited 90 adults considering cancer clinical trials of whom 77 participated. After discussing the trial with the physician and reading the trial consent form, patients were randomized to receive (n=38) or not receive (n=39) the study video. Using a validated questionnaire, we interviewed subjects to assess objective understanding of the trial, our primary endpoint, and self-reported understanding of clinical trials. All subjects completed a second interview assessing secondary endpoints, including patient-provider communication, satisfaction with video, and decision-making. We used linear regression (two-sided tests) to conduct the primary analysis and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and descriptive statistics to analyze the secondary aims. Results: Neither objective nor self-reported understanding of clinical trials differed between the two groups (Mean 86.5 vs. 87, p=0.75). 85% (61/72) indicated the video was an important source of information about clinical trials; 89% of those who watched the video with their family/friends (n=37) said the video helped loved ones better understand clinical trials; 73% indicated it helped their family accept their decision about participation. 81% (58/72) felt better prepared to discuss the trial with their physician after watching the video. Of those who found the video helpful with decision- making, 80% (21/26) were considering a trial for the first time compared with 19% (5/26) veterans who had previously participated in a clinical trial. Conclusions: The video did not measurably improve subjects’ understanding of their clinical trials. However, subjects reported that the video was an important source of information, helped them educate their families, and enhanced patient-provider communication. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Understanding and retention of trial-related information among participants in a clinical trial after completing the informed consent process

2013 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernanda Mexas ◽  
Anne Efron ◽  
Ronir Raggio Luiz ◽  
Michelle Cailleaux-Cezar ◽  
Richard E Chaisson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Informed Consent Process ◽  
Consent Process ◽  
Related Information

Comparing two methods for delivering clinical trial informed consent information to older adults: singular versus stepped approach

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 610-615
Author(s):  
Fleur O’Hare ◽  
Zachary Flanagan ◽  
Mark Nelson ◽  
Andrea Curtis ◽  
Stephane Heritier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Informed Consent Process ◽  
Consent Process ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Delivery Method ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Baseline Screening

Background Adapting the informed consent process to the needs of older adults may enhance engagement and willingness to participate in a clinical trial. A key aspect of the process is being provided with written clinical trial information and consent documents and having an opportunity to discuss the information with the researcher. However, there are no guidelines on the most appropriate method for delivering this information to older adults and it is not known whether the delivery method is a facilitator or barrier towards clinical trial participation. Aims To compare two delivery methods of informed consent on recruitment, refusal to continue and randomisation rates in a general practice-based clinical trial involving older adults. Methods In a matched cohort sub-study as part of the STAtins in Reducing Events in the Elderly clinical trial, 520 participants were allocated into two groups by age, gender and attending general practice location, to receive the trial information and consent form in the mail (Method 1) prior to the first baseline visit or in person (Method 2) at the visit where a comprehensive informed consent process took place. Results Compared with Method 1, potential participants assigned to Method 2 were more likely to agree to attend the first baseline screening visit (refusal rate 20% vs 13.5%, respectively, p = 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the proportion of participants recruited into the trial by providing written informed consent at the first baseline screening visit. For each informed consent delivery method, similar proportions of participants refused to take part in the trial by the end of the screening phase. Randomisation rates in the two groups were also similar. Time to conduct the informed consent procedure took significantly longer with Method 2 compared with Method 1 (median time 20 vs 15 min, respectively, p < 0.01). Interest in the research trial topic was the main reason cited (33.4%) for considering trial participation. Conclusion Later delivery of informed consent documents to potential participants in this trial was associated with a small increase in attendance at the first, in person, screening visit. However, the randomisation rate of participants into the trial was not affected by the method and timing of delivery of informed consent information. Similar randomisation rates occurred whether potential participants were mailed informed consent documents prior to the first in person screening visit or were given the information at the screening visit.

scholarly journals Measuring informed consent capacity in an Alzheimer's disease clinical trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 258-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter D. Guarino ◽  
Julia E. Vertrees ◽  
Sanjay Asthana ◽  
Mary Sano ◽  
Maria D. Llorente ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Informed Consent

The Informed Consent Process and the Use of the Exception to Informed Consent in the Clinical Trial of Diaspirin

2008 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. 1203-1208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward P. Sloan ◽  
Max Koenigsberg ◽  
Jaime Houghton ◽  
David Gens ◽  
Mark Cipolle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Informed Consent Process ◽  
Consent Process
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document