Explore the vast range of titles available.

Informed consent is the cornerstone of human research subject protection. Many subjects sign consent documents without understanding the study purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and their rights. Proof of comprehension is not required and rarely obtained. Understanding might improve by using an interactive system with multiple options for hearing, viewing and reading about the study and the consent form at the subject's own pace with testing and immediate feedback. This prospective randomized study compared the IRB-approved paper ICF for an actual clinical research study with an interactive presentation of the same study and its associated consent form using an iPad device in two populations: clinical research professionals, and patients drawn from a variety of outpatient practice settings. Of the 90 participants, 69 completed the online test and survey questions the day after the session (maximum 36 hours post-session). Among research professionals (n = 14), there was a trend (p = .07) in the direction of iPad subjects testing better on the online test (mean correct  =  77%) compared with paper subjects (mean correct = 57%). Among patients (n = 55), iPad subjects had significantly higher test scores than standard paper consent subjects (mean correct = 75% vs 58%, p < .001). For all subjects, the total time spent reviewing the paper consent was 13.2 minutes, significantly less than the average of 22.7 minutes total on the three components to be reviewed using the iPad (introductory video, consent form, interactive quiz). Overall satisfaction and overall enjoyment slightly favored the interactive iPad presentation. This study demonstrates that combining an introductory video, standard consent language, and an interactive quiz on a tablet-based system improves comprehension of research study procedures and risks.

Consent forms play an active role in the consent process with generic, handwritten consent forms (GCF) often the standard across the National Health Service. Increasingly, procedure-specific consent forms (PSCF) are being used as an alternative. However, concerns remain about whether they meet the standard for consent. We therefore conducted a systematic review with the objectives of investigating evidence for PSCF, study methodology and medicolegal criteria. This systematic review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023392693) and conducted from 1 January 1990 to 17 March 2023 using the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Emcare databases. A grey literature search was also performed. All studies evaluating PSCF in medical and surgical settings were included. Risk-of-bias analysis was performed using 'RoB 2' and 'ROBINS-I'. Meta-analysis was not possible because of the results' heterogeneity. We identified 21 studies investigating PSCF with no systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported. Most studies were quality improvement projects ( = 10) followed by randomised studies ( = 5). No definitive legal guidance for PSCFs and no studies assessing their role in litigation post-procedural complications were identified. PSCFs were associated with improved documentation (70%-100%; = 11) and legibility (100%; = 2) compared with GCF. Randomised studies ( = 4) investigating patient understanding and recall for PSCF were inconclusive compared with GCF. The heterogeneous evidence available merely demonstrates superior documentation of PSCF compared with GCF. Studies do not adequately investigate the impact on informed consent and fail to address the associated legal concerns. Further randomised studies with patient-centric outcomes and consideration for medicolegal criteria are needed.

Background Obtaining informed consent is a cornerstone of biomedical research, yet participants comprehension of presented information is often low. The most effective interventions to improve understanding rates have not been identified. Purpose To systematically analyze the random controlled trials testing interventions to research informed consent process. The primary outcome of interest was quantitative rates of participant understanding; secondary outcomes were rates of information retention, satisfaction, and accrual. Interventional categories included multimedia, enhanced consent documents, extended discussions, test/feedback quizzes, and miscellaneous methods. Methods The search spanned from database inception through September 2010. It was run on Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid CINAHL, Ovid PsycInfo and Cochrane CENTRAL, ISI Web of Science and Scopus. Five reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened full abstract text to determine eligibility. We included only RCTs. 39 out of 1523 articles fulfilled review criteria (2.6%), with a total of 54 interventions. A data extraction form was created in Distiller, an online reference management system, through an iterative process. One author collected data on study design, population, demographics, intervention, and analytical technique. Results Meta-analysis was possible on 22 interventions: multimedia, enhanced form, and extended discussion categories; all 54 interventions were assessed by review. Meta-analysis of multimedia approaches was associated with a non-significant increase in understanding scores (SMD 0.30, 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.84); enhanced consent form, with significant increase (SMD 1.73, 95% CI, 0.99 to 2.47); and extended discussion, with significant increase (SMD 0.53, 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.84). By review, 31% of multimedia interventions showed significant improvement in understanding; 41% for enhanced consent form; 50% for extended discussion; 33% for test/feedback; and 29% for miscellaneous.Multiple sources of variation existed between included studies: control processes, the presence of a human proctor, real vs. simulated protocol, and assessment formats. Conclusions Enhanced consent forms and extended discussions were most effective in improving participant understanding. Interventions of all categories had no negative impact on participant satisfaction or study accrual. Identification of best practices for studies of informed consent interventions would aid future systematic comparisons.

In Europe, within the scope of the General Data Protection Regulation, more and more digital infrastructures are created to allow for large-scale access to patients' health data and their use for research. When the research is performed on the basis of patient consent, traditional study-specific consent appears too cumbersome for many researchers. Alternative models of consent are currently being discussed and introduced in different contexts. This study explores stakeholder perspectives on ethical, legal, and practical concerns regarding models of consent for health data research at German university medical centers. Semistructured focus group interviews were conducted with medical researchers at German university medical centers, health IT specialists, data protection officers, and patient representatives. The interviews were analyzed using a software-supported structuring qualitative content analysis. Stakeholders regarded broad consent to be only marginally less laborious to implement and manage than tiered consent. Patient representatives favored specific consent, with tiered consent as a possible alternative. All stakeholders lamented that information material was difficult to understand. Oral information and videos were mentioned as a means of improvement. Patient representatives doubted that researchers had a sufficient degree of data security expertise to act as sole information providers. They were afraid of undue pressure if obtaining health data research consent were part of medical appointments. IT specialists and other stakeholders regarded the withdrawal of consent to be a major challenge and called for digital consent management solutions. On the one hand, the transfer of health data to non-European countries and for-profit organizations is seen as a necessity for research. On the other hand, there are data security concerns with regard to these actors. Research without consent is legally possible under certain conditions but deemed problematic by all stakeholder groups, albeit for differing reasons and to different degrees. More efforts should be made to determine which options of choice should be included in health data research consent. Digital tools could improve patient information and facilitate consent management. A unified and strict regulation for research without consent is required at the national and European Union level. Obtaining consent for health data research should be independent of medical appointments, and additional personnel should be trained in data security to provide information on health data research.

Biomedical research is being transformed through the application of information technologies that allow ever greater amounts of data to be shared on an unprecedented scale. However, the methods for involving participants have not kept pace with changes in research capability. In an era when information is shared digitally at the global level, mechanisms of informed consent remain static, paper-based and organised around national boundaries and legal frameworks. Dynamic consent (DC) is both a specific project and a wider concept that offers a new approach to consent; one designed to meet the needs of the twenty-first century research landscape. At the heart of DC is a personalised, digital communication interface that connects researchers and participants, placing participants at the heart of decision making. The interface facilitates two-way communication to stimulate a more engaged, informed and scientifically literate participant population where individuals can tailor and manage their own consent preferences. The technical architecture of DC includes components that can securely encrypt sensitive data and allow participant consent preferences to travel with their data and samples when they are shared with third parties. In addition to improving transparency and public trust, this system benefits researchers by streamlining recruitment and enabling more efficient participant recontact. DC has mainly been developed in biobanking contexts, but it also has potential application in other domains for a variety of purposes.

Scientific researchers who wish to reuse health data pertaining to individuals can obtain consent through an opt-in procedure or opt-out procedure. The choice of procedure may have consequences for the consent rate and representativeness of the study sample and the quality of the research, but these consequences are not well known. This review aimed to provide insight into the consequences for the consent rate and consent bias of the study sample of opt-in procedures versus opt-out procedures for the reuse of routinely recorded health data for scientific research purposes. A systematic review was performed based on searches in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently included studies based on predefined eligibility criteria and assessed whether the statistical methods used in the reviewed literature were appropriate for describing the differences between consenters and nonconsenters. Statistical pooling was conducted, and a description of the results was provided. A total of 15 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Of the 15 studies, 13 (87%) implemented an opt-in procedure, 1 (7%) implemented an opt-out procedure, and 1 (7%) implemented both the procedures. The average weighted consent rate was 84% (60,800/72,418 among the studies that used an opt-in procedure and 96.8% (2384/2463) in the single study that used an opt-out procedure. In the single study that described both procedures, the consent rate was 21% in the opt-in group and 95.6% in the opt-out group. Opt-in procedures resulted in more consent bias compared with opt-out procedures. In studies with an opt-in procedure, consenting individuals were more likely to be males, had a higher level of education, higher income, and higher socioeconomic status. Consent rates are generally lower when using an opt-in procedure compared with using an opt-out procedure. Furthermore, in studies with an opt-in procedure, participants are less representative of the study population. However, both the study populations and the way in which opt-in or opt-out procedures were organized varied widely between the studies, which makes it difficult to draw general conclusions regarding the desired balance between patient control over data and learning from health data. The reuse of routinely recorded health data for scientific research purposes may be hampered by administrative burdens and the risk of bias.

Consent is a bedrock principle in democratic society and a primary means through which our law expresses its commitment to individual liberty. While there seems to be broad consensus that consent is important, little is known about what people think consent is. This Article undertakes an empirical investigation of people's ordinary intuitions about when consent has been granted. Using techniques from moral psychology and experimental philosophy, it advances the core claim that most laypeople think consent is compatible with fraud, contradicting prevailing normative theories of consent. This empirical phenomenon is observed across over two dozen scenarios spanning numerous contexts in which consent is legally salient, including sex, surgery, participation in medical research, warrantless searches by police, and contracts. Armed with this empirical finding, this Article revisits a longstanding legal puzzle about why the law refuses to treat fraudulently procured consent to sexual intercourse as rape. It exposes how prevailing explanations for this puzzle have focused too narrowly on sex. It suggests instead that the law may be influenced by the commonsense understanding of consent in all sorts of domains, including and beyond sexual consent. Meanwhile, the discovery of \"commonsense consent\" allows us to see that the problem is much deeper and more pervasive than previous commentators have realized. The findings expose a large—and largely unrecognized—disconnect between commonsense intuition and the dominant philosophical conception of consent. The Article thus grapples with the relationship between folk morality, normative theory, and the law.

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.