» Articles » PMID: 33030440

Implementation of Electronic Informed Consent in Biomedical Research and Stakeholders' Perspectives: Systematic Review

Overview
Publisher JMIR Publications
Date 2020 Oct 8
PMID 33030440
Citations 38
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Informed consent is one of the key elements in biomedical research. The introduction of electronic informed consent can be a way to overcome many challenges related to paper-based informed consent; however, its novel opportunities remain largely unfulfilled due to several barriers.

Objective: We aimed to provide an overview of the ethical, legal, regulatory, and user interface perspectives of multiple stakeholder groups in order to assist responsible implementation of electronic informed consent in biomedical research.

Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search using Web of Science (Core collection), PubMed, EMBASE, ACM Digital Library, and PsycARTICLES. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were used for reporting this work. We included empirical full-text studies focusing on the concept of electronic informed consent in biomedical research covering the ethical, legal, regulatory, and user interface domains. Studies written in English and published from January 2010 onward were selected. We explored perspectives of different stakeholder groups, in particular researchers, research participants, health authorities, and ethics committees. We critically appraised literature included in the systematic review using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort and cross-sectional studies, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for qualitative studies, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for mixed methods studies, and Jadad tool for randomized controlled trials.

Results: A total of 40 studies met our inclusion criteria. Overall, the studies were heterogeneous in the type of study design, population, intervention, research context, and the tools used. Most of the studies' populations were research participants (ie, patients and healthy volunteers). The majority of studies addressed barriers to achieving adequate understanding when using electronic informed consent. Concerns shared by multiple stakeholder groups were related to the security and legal validity of an electronic informed consent platform and usability for specific groups of research participants.

Conclusions: Electronic informed consent has the potential to improve the informed consent process in biomedical research compared to the current paper-based consent. The ethical, legal, regulatory, and user interface perspectives outlined in this review might serve to enhance the future implementation of electronic informed consent.

Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020158979; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=158979.

Citing Articles

A pilot study to explore utility of electronic informed consent in a low- income setting; the case of a Controlled human infection study in Blantyre, Malawi.

Ngoliwa C, Chakwiya C, Gondwe J, Nsomba E, Nkhoma V, Reuben M Wellcome Open Res. 2025; 9:233.

PMID: 40012986 PMC: 11862358. DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20770.2.


Improving Participant Recruitment in Clinical Trials: Comparative Analysis of Innovative Digital Platforms.

Bikou A, Deligianni E, Dermiki-Gkana F, Liappas N, Terius-Padron J, Beltran Jaunsaras M J Med Internet Res. 2024; 26():e60504.

PMID: 39693619 PMC: 11694053. DOI: 10.2196/60504.


Insights From the Development of a Dynamic Consent Platform for the Australians Together Health Initiative (ATHENA) Program: Interview and Survey Study.

Xiong E, Bonner C, King A, Bourne Z, Morgan M, Tolosa X JMIR Form Res. 2024; 8:e57165.

PMID: 39504120 PMC: 11579620. DOI: 10.2196/57165.


Opportunities and challenges of a dynamic consent-based application: personalized options for personal health data sharing and utilization.

Lee A, Koo D, Kim I, Lee E, Yoo S, Lee H BMC Med Ethics. 2024; 25(1):92.

PMID: 39217356 PMC: 11365279. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-024-01091-3.


Ethical framework for FACILITATE: a foundation for the return of clinical trial data to participants.

Staunton C, Blom J, Mascalzoni D Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 11:1408600.

PMID: 39086946 PMC: 11288969. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1408600.


References
1.
Schenker Y, Wang F, Selig S, Ng R, Fernandez A . The impact of language barriers on documentation of informed consent at a hospital with on-site interpreter services. J Gen Intern Med. 2007; 22 Suppl 2:294-9. PMC: 2078548. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-007-0359-1. View

2.
Doerr M, Maguire Truong A, Bot B, Wilbanks J, Suver C, Mangravite L . Formative Evaluation of Participant Experience With Mobile eConsent in the App-Mediated Parkinson mPower Study: A Mixed Methods Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017; 5(2):e14. PMC: 5334514. DOI: 10.2196/mhealth.6521. View

3.
Jayasinghe N, Moallem B, Kakoullis M, Ojie M, Sar-Graycar L, Wyka K . Establishing the Feasibility of a Tablet-Based Consent Process with Older Adults: A Mixed-Methods Study. Gerontologist. 2018; 59(1):124-134. PMC: 6326252. DOI: 10.1093/geront/gny045. View

4.
Chen C, Turner S, Sholle E, Brown S, Blau V, Brouwer J . Evaluation of a REDCap-based Workflow for Supporting Federal Guidance for Electronic Informed Consent. AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc. 2019; 2019:163-172. PMC: 6568140. View

5.
Budin-Ljosne I, Teare H, Kaye J, Beck S, Bentzen H, Caenazzo L . Dynamic Consent: a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research. BMC Med Ethics. 2017; 18(1):4. PMC: 5264333. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-016-0162-9. View