Improved Participants' Understanding in a Healthy Volunteer Study Using the SIDCER Informed Consent Form: a Randomized-controlled Study

Overview

Journal Eur J Clin Pharmacol

Specialty Pharmacology

Date 2015 Dec 30

PMID 26713336

Citations 8

Authors

Nut Koonrungsesomboon

Supanimit Teekachunhatean

Nutthiya Hanprasertpong

Junjira Laothavorn

Kesara Na-Bangchang

Juntra Karbwang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the applicability of the principles and informed consent form (ICF) template proposed by the Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review (SIDCER) in a clinical pharmacokinetic study by comparing the volunteers' understanding of the enhanced ICF (developed based on the SIDCER methodology) and the conventional ICF (which was previously approved by local Ethics Committee and used in the clinical study).

Methods: A total of 550 volunteers were randomly assigned to read either the enhanced ICF or the conventional ICF (1:1) in a mock informed consent approach and subsequently performed the post-test questionnaire. The primary endpoint was the proportion of the participants who had the post-test score of ≥ 80 %; the secondary endpoints were the total score of the post-test, the score of the categorized ICF elements, and time spent for participation.

Results: The proportion of the participants in the enhanced ICF group who achieved the primary endpoint was significantly higher than the conventional ICF group (82.2 % vs. 60.4 %, p < 0.001). The participants in the enhanced ICF group obtained higher scores and spent less time in reading the given ICF and answering the post-test than those in the conventional ICF group (total score 19/21 vs. 18/21, p < 0.001; time spent 20 min vs. 25 min, p < 0.001).

Conclusion: The enhanced ICF improved the understanding of the participants in this study. This demonstrates the applicability of the SIDCER ICF principles and its template in the development of an enhanced ICF for improving the quality of ICFs and subjects' understanding in clinical research.

Trial Registration: TCTR20140727001.

Citing Articles

Towards a more patient-centered clinical trial process: A systematic review of interventions incorporating health literacy best practices.

Bader M, Zheng L, Rao D, Shiyanbola O, Myers L, Davis T Contemp Clin Trials. 2022; 116:106733.

PMID: 35301134 PMC: 9196949. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2022.106733.

Researcher and study participants' perspectives of consent in clinical studies in four referral hospitals in Vietnam.

Van Nuil J, Nguyen T, Le Nguyen T, Nguyen V, Chambers M, Ta T BMC Med Ethics. 2020; 21(1):4.

PMID: 31924199 PMC: 6954581. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-020-0445-z.

Improved parental understanding by an enhanced informed consent form: a randomized controlled study nested in a paediatric drug trial.

Koonrungsesomboon N, Traivaree C, Tiyapsane C, Karbwang J BMJ Open. 2019; 9(11):e029530.

PMID: 31772085 PMC: 6887000. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029530.

The quality of consent form structure in biomedical research: a study from Jordan and Sudan.

Ibrahim M, Alshogran O, Khabour O, Alzoubi K J Multidiscip Healthc. 2019; 12:727-731.

PMID: 31564889 PMC: 6731522. DOI: 10.2147/JMDH.S219316.

Informational needs for participation in bioequivalence studies: the perspectives of experienced volunteers.

Koonrungsesomboon N, Potikanond S, Takuathung M, Nimlamool W, Karbwang J Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2019; 75(11):1575-1582.

PMID: 31428815 DOI: 10.1007/s00228-019-02738-6.

References

Fortun P, West J, Chalkley L, Shonde A, Hawkey C . Recall of informed consent information by healthy volunteers in clinical trials. QJM. 2008; 101(8):625-9. DOI: 10.1093/qjmed/hcn067. View

Paris A, Brandt C, Cornu C, Maison P, Thalamas C, Cracowski J . Informed consent document improvement does not increase patients' comprehension in biomedical research. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010; 69(3):231-7. PMC: 2829692. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03565.x. View

Berger O, Gronberg B, Sand K, Kaasa S, Loge J . The length of consent documents in oncological trials is doubled in twenty years. Ann Oncol. 2008; 20(2):379-85. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdn623. View

Apseloff G, Kitzmiller J, Tishler C . Credibility and comprehension of healthy volunteers in lengthy inpatient drug studies. Am J Ther. 2013; 20(3):257-60. DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0b013e3182811a9e. View

Matsui K, Lie R, Turin T, Kita Y . A randomized controlled trial of short and standard-length consent forms for a genetic cohort study: is longer better?. J Epidemiol. 2012; 22(4):308-16. PMC: 3798649. DOI: 10.2188/jea.je20110104. View

Arora A, Rajagopalan S, Shafiq N, Pandhi P, Bhalla A, Dhibar D . Development of tool for the assessment of comprehension of informed consent form in healthy volunteers participating in first-in-human studies. Contemp Clin Trials. 2011; 32(6):814-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2011.05.012. View

Sugarman J, Levine C . Risk in drug trials. Lancet. 2006; 368(9554):2205. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69881-4. View

Suntharalingam G, Perry M, Ward S, Brett S, Castello-Cortes A, Brunner M . Cytokine storm in a phase 1 trial of the anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody TGN1412. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355(10):1018-28. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa063842. View

Kass N, Chaisson L, Taylor H, Lohse J . Length and complexity of US and international HIV consent forms from federal HIV network trials. J Gen Intern Med. 2011; 26(11):1324-8. PMC: 3208469. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-011-1778-6. View

10.

Knapp P, Raynor D, Silcock J, Parkinson B . Performance-based readability testing of participant materials for a phase I trial: TGN1412. J Med Ethics. 2009; 35(9):573-8. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.026708. View

11.

Sharp S . Consent documents for oncology trials: does anybody read these things?. Am J Clin Oncol. 2004; 27(6):570-5. DOI: 10.1097/01.coc.0000135925.83221.b3. View

12.

Paris A, Nogueira da Gama Chaves D, Cornu C, Maison P, Salvat-Melis M, Ribuot C . Improvement of the comprehension of written information given to healthy volunteers in biomedical research: a single-blind randomized controlled study. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2007; 21(2):207-14. DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-8206.2007.00472.x. View

13.

Mohr N, Moreno-Walton L, Mills A, Brunett P, Promes S . Generational influences in academic emergency medicine: teaching and learning, mentoring, and technology (part I). Acad Emerg Med. 2011; 18(2):190-9. PMC: 3076332. DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00985.x. View

14.

Nishimura A, Carey J, Erwin P, Tilburt J, Murad M, McCormick J . Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. BMC Med Ethics. 2013; 14:28. PMC: 3733934. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-14-28. View

15.

Sato K, Watanabe T, Katsumata N, Sato T, Ohashi Y . Satisfying the needs of Japanese cancer patients: a comparative study of detailed and standard informed consent documents. Clin Trials. 2014; 11(1):86-95. DOI: 10.1177/1740774513515550. View

16.

Enama M, Hu Z, Gordon I, Costner P, Ledgerwood J, Grady C . Randomization to standard and concise informed consent forms: development of evidence-based consent practices. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012; 33(5):895-902. PMC: 3408575. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2012.04.005. View

17.

Dunn L, Jeste D . Enhancing informed consent for research and treatment. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001; 24(6):595-607. DOI: 10.1016/S0893-133X(00)00218-9. View

18.

Fitzgerald D, Marotte C, Verdier R, Johnson Jr W, Pape J . Comprehension during informed consent in a less-developed country. Lancet. 2002; 360(9342):1301-2. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11338-9. View

19.

Beardsley E, Jefford M, Mileshkin L . Longer consent forms for clinical trials compromise patient understanding: so why are they lengthening?. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(9):e13-4. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.3341. View

20.

MacQueen K, Chen M, Ramirez C, Nnko S, Earp K . Comparison of closed-ended, open-ended, and perceived informed consent comprehension measures for a mock HIV prevention trial among women in Tanzania. PLoS One. 2014; 9(8):e105720. PMC: 4144899. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105720. View