Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background: Although the amount of detail in informed consent documents has increased over time and the documents have therefore become very long, there is little research on whether longer informed consent documents actually result in (1) better informed research subjects or (2) higher consent rates. We therefore conducted an add-on randomized controlled trial to the Takashima Study, a prospective Japanese population-based genetic cohort study, to test the hypothesis that a shorter informed consent form would satisfy both of the above goals. Methods: Standard (10 459 words, 11 pages) and short (3602 words, 5 pages) consent forms in Japanese were developed and distributed using cluster-randomization to 293 potential cohort subjects living in 9 medico-social units and 288 subjects in 8 medico-social units, respectively. Results: Few differences were found between the 2 groups with regard to outcome measures, including participants' self-perceived understanding, recall of information, concerns, voluntariness, trust, satisfaction, sense of duty, and consent rates. Conclusions: A short informed consent form was no less valid than a standard form with regard to fulfilling ethical requirements and securing the scientific validity of research.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Information on the rights of subjects in clinical trials has become increasingly complex and difficult to understand. This study evaluates whether a simple booklet which is relevant to all research studies improves the understanding of rights needed for subjects to provide informed consent. 21 currently used informed consent forms (ICF) from international clinical trials were separated into information related to the specific research study, and general information on participants' rights. A booklet designed to provide information on participants' rights which used simple language was developed to replace this information in current ICF's Readability of each component of ICF's and the booklet was then assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading ease score (FK). To further evaluate the booklet 282 hospital inpatients were randomised to one of three ways to present research information; a standard ICF, the booklet combined with a short ICF, or the booklet combined with a simplified ICF. Comprehension of information related to the research proposal and to participant's rights was assessed by questionnaire. Information related to participants' rights contributed an average of 44% of the words in standard ICFs, and was harder to read than information describing the clinical trial (FK 25 versus (vs.) 41 respectively, p = 0.0003). The booklet reduced the number of words and improved FK from 25 to 42. The simplified ICF had a slightly higher FK score than the standard ICF (50 vs. 42). Comprehension assessed in inpatients was better for the booklet and short ICF 62%, (95% confidence interval (CI) 56 to 67) correct, or simplified ICF 62% (CI 58 to 68) correct compared to 52%, (CI 47 to 57) correct for the standard ICF, p = 0.009. This was due to better understanding of questions on rights (62% vs. 49% correct, p = 0.0008). Comprehension of study related information was similar for the simplified and standard ICF (60% vs. 64% correct, p = 0.68). A booklet provides a simple consistent approach to providing information on participant rights which is relevant to all research studies, and improves comprehension of patients who typically participate in clinical trials.

Guidelines on informed consent intend to protect patients and promote ethical research conduct. To give informed consent, individuals should understand the purpose, process, risks, benefits, and alternatives to research (or a proposed clinical intervention) and make a free, voluntary decision about whether to participate. Many participants have incomplete understanding of various features of clinical trials. Issues associated with the length, format, and language of documents for written informed consent are common. Here, we analyse the written consent form, particularly in the context of clinical research, and the discussions that take place between clinician or investigator and patient. We review strategies to improve consent forms, particularly the use of plain language. Recommendations are made on discussions between investigator and patient to improve participant comprehension and satisfaction with the informed-consent process.

Background Digital health technologies, including mobile applications, wearable devices, and sensors, are rapidly transforming clinical research. However, current informed consent practices often fall short of addressing the unique ethical risks introduced by these technologies. This study aims to develop and assess a comprehensive ethical consent framework to improve transparency, equity, and participant protection in digital health research. Methods We developed a consent framework aligned with national research ethics guidance, including 63 attributes and 93 subattributes across four domains: Consent, Grantee (Researcher) Permissions, Grantee (Researcher) Obligations, and Technology. We conducted thematic analysis under guidance and then reviewed 25 informed consent forms from real-world digital health studies to expand the guidance and assess each form's alignment with the framework. We used descriptive statistics to measure attribute completeness and to identify missing ethical elements. Results None of the consent forms fully adhered to all the required or recommended ethical elements, especially those related to technology-specific risks. The highest completeness for the required attributes reached only 73.5%. We also identified four ethically salient consent elements not present in the current national guidance: commercial profit sharing, study information disclosure, during-study result sharing, and data removal requests. Conclusions These findings reveal persistent ethical gaps in participant protection and highlight the need for more comprehensive, equity-oriented consent practices. Our framework offers a practical tool to strengthen transparency, autonomy, and justice in digital health research.

Introduction The aim of this study was to objectively ascertain the level of readability of standardised consent forms for orthopaedic procedures. Methods Standardised consent forms (both in summary and detailed formats) endorsed by the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) were retrieved from orthoconsent.com and assessed for readability. This involved using an online tool to calculate the validated Flesch reading ease score (FRES). This was compared with the FRES for the National Health Service (NHS) Consent Form 1. Data were analysed and interpreted according to the FRES grading table. Results The FRES for Consent Form 1 was 55.6, relating to the literacy expected of an A level student. The mean FRES for the BOA summary consent forms (n=27) was 63.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 61.2-66.0) while for the detailed consent forms (n=32), it was 68.9 (95% CI: 67.7-70.0). All BOA detailed forms scored >60, correlating to the literacy expected of a 13-15-year-old. The detailed forms had a higher FRES than the summary forms (p<0.001). Conclusions This study demonstrates that the BOA endorsed standardised consent forms are much easier to read and understand than the NHS Consent Form 1, with the detailed BOA forms being the easiest to read. Despite this, owing to varying literacy levels, a significant proportion of patients may struggle to give informed consent based on the written information provided to them.

BackgroundThe rise in genomic and biobanking research worldwide has led to the development of different informed consent models for use in such research. This study analyses consent documents used by investigators in the H3Africa (Human Heredity and Health in Africa) Consortium.MethodsA qualitative method for text analysis was used to analyse consent documents used in the collection of samples and data in H3Africa projects. Thematic domains included type of consent model, explanations of genetics/genomics, data sharing and feedback of test results.ResultsInformed consent documents for 13 of the 19 H3Africa projects were analysed. Seven projects used broad consent, five projects used tiered consent and one used specific consent. Genetics was mostly explained in terms of inherited characteristics, heredity and health, genes and disease causation, or disease susceptibility. Only one project made provisions for the feedback of individual genetic results.ConclusionH3Africa research makes use of three consent models—specific, tiered and broad consent. We outlined different strategies used by H3Africa investigators to explain concepts in genomics to potential research participants. To further ensure that the decision to participate in genomic research is informed and meaningful, we recommend that innovative approaches to the informed consent process be developed, preferably in consultation with research participants, research ethics committees and researchers in Africa.

The practice of obtaining informed consent has its history in, and gains its meaning from, medicine and biomedical research. Discussions of disclosure and justified nondisclosure have played a significant role throughout the history of medical ethics, but the term “informed consent” emerged only in the 1950s. Serious discussion of the meaning and ethics of informed consent began in medicine, research, law, and philosophy only around 1972.

Purpose Little is known about how health-care professionals communicate with patients about consenting to genome sequencing. We therefore examined what topics health-care professionals covered and what questions patients asked during consent conversations. Methods Twenty-one genome sequencing consent appointments were audio recorded and analyzed. Participants were 35 individuals being invited to participate in the 100,000 Genomes Project (14 participants with rare diseases, 21 relatives), and 10 health-care professionals (“consenters”). Results Two-thirds of participants’ questions were substantive (e.g., genetics and inheritance); one-third administrative (e.g., filling in the consent form). Consenters usually (19/21) emphasized participant choice about secondary findings, but less often (13/21) emphasized the uncertainty about associated disease risks. Consenters primarily used passive statements and closed-ended, rather than open-ended, questions to invite participants’ questions and concerns. In two appointments, one parent expressed negative or uncertain views about secondary findings, but after discussion with the other parent opted to receive them. Conclusion Health-care professionals need to be prepared to answer patients’ questions about genetics to facilitate genome sequencing consent. Health-care professionals’ education also needs to address how to effectively listen and elicit each patient’s questions and views, and how to discuss uncertainty around the disease risks associated with secondary findings.

Background Rare Disease research has seen tremendous advancements over the last decades, with the development of new technologies, various global collaborative efforts and improved data sharing. To maximize the impact of and to further build on these developments, there is a need for model consent clauses for rare diseases research, in order to improve data interoperability, to meet the informational needs of participants, and to ensure proper ethical and legal use of data sources and participants’ overall protection. Methods A global Task Force was set up to develop model consent clauses specific to rare diseases research, that are comprehensive, harmonized, readily accessible, and internationally applicable, facilitating the recruitment and consent of rare disease research participants around the world. Existing consent forms and notices of consent were analyzed and classified under different consent themes, which were used as background to develop the model consent clauses. Results The IRDiRC-GA4GH MCC Task Force met in September 2018, to discuss and design model consent clauses. Based on analyzed consent forms, they listed generic core elements and designed the following rare disease research specific core elements; Rare Disease Research Introductory Clause, Familial Participation, Audio/Visual Imaging, Collecting, storing, sharing of rare disease data, Recontact for matching, Data Linkage, Return of Results to Family Members, Incapacity/Death, and Benefits. Conclusion The model consent clauses presented in this article have been drafted to highlight consent elements that bear in mind the trends in rare disease research, while providing a tool to help foster harmonization and collaborative efforts.