BACKGROUND: Obtaining informed consent from research study participants continues to meet difficulties. New ways to connect with potential participants are necessary to address barriers, expand enrollment and offer more services to underserved populations. OBJECTIVES: Electronic consent is designed to complete consenting sessions remotely and may help combat the obstacles inherent in the traditional informed consent process. We investigate the implementation of an electronic consent platform, Teleconsent, to broaden and diversify recruitment for clinical research. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with community members to assess their perceptions regarding the acceptability and usability of Teleconsent, a form of electronic consent. Interviews were structured to determine the main benefits, challenges and concerns as detailed by each participant. Participants were divided into rural and urban groupings. RESULTS: We interviewed 40 participants to gather first-time perceptions of Teleconsent. We found overall positive results. Predominately in urban communities, participants possessed the technological skills and amenities to support smooth implementation of this technology. However, many participants reflect on the challenges regarding logistics, privacy and reliability of utilizing Teleconsent in underserved, rural areas. 5 of 19 participants, more than a quarter for the rural group, experienced Teleconsent software problems. During these sessions, an alternative process with paper templates was employed to complete interviews. CONCLUSION: Perceptions regarding Teleconsent demonstrate current challenges along with potential acceptance within different communities. This is despite the fact that on its own it will not be able to overcome the barriers currently found in the informed consent process. Still, investment in electronic consent, including the development of enhanced and interactive content, can potentially revolutionize this process. Our findings offer a preliminary step towards determining the feasibility and acceptance of Teleconsent, a form of electronic consent, in different communities. More research surrounding the logistics of adoption is necessary in order to determine success.

The Carolina Health Informatics Program The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill North Carolina United States

The Eshelman School of Pharmacy and The Cecil Sheps Center for Health Services Research The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill North Carolina United States

The Gillings School of Global Public Health The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill North Carolina United States

The Medical University South Carolina United States

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Grady C Enduring and Emerging Challenges of Informed Consent. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(9): 855–862. PubMed

Hayden EC. Informed consent: A broken contract. Nature. 2012; 486(7403): 312–314. PubMed

The Natpional Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report. 1979.

Cocanour CS. Informed consent-It’s more than a signature on a piece of paper. Am J Surg. 2017; 214(6): 993–997. PubMed

Spatz E, Krumholz H, Moulton B. The New Era of Informed Consent: Getting to a Reasonable Patient Standard through Shared Decision Making. JAMA. 2016; 263(2): 219–227. PubMed PMC

Syrowatka A, Brehaut JC, Saginur R, Fergusson D, Kimmelman J, Elwyn G, et al. Elements of informed consent and decision quality were poorly correlated in informed consent documents. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68(12): 1472–1480. PubMed

Simonds VW, Garroutte EM, Buchwald D. Health Literarcy and Informed Consent Materials: Designed for Documentation, Not Comprehension of Health Research. J Health Commun. 2016; 25(3): 289–313. PubMed PMC

Spertus JA, Bach R, Bethea C, Chhatriwalla A, Curtis JP, Gialde E, et al. Improving the process of informed consent for percutaneous coronary inter. Am Heart J. 2015; 169(2): 234–241.e1. PubMed PMC

Nishimura A, Carey J, Erwin PJ, Tilburt JC, Murad MH, McCormick JB. Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: A systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. BMC Med Ethics. 2013; 14(1). PubMed PMC

Lentz J, Kennett M, Perlmutter J, Forrest A. Paving the way to a more effective informed consent process: Recommendations from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. Contemp Clin Trials. 2016; 49: 65–69. PubMed

Lorell BH, Mikita JS, Anderson A, Hallinan ZP, Forrest A. Informed consent in clinical research: Consensus recommendations for reform identified by an expert interview panel. Clin Trials. 2015; 12(6): 692–695. PubMed PMC

Heller C, Balls-Berry JE, Nery JD, Erwin PJ, Littleton D, Kim M, et al. Strategies addressing barriers to clinical trial enrollment of underrepresented populations: A systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014; 39(2): 169–182. PubMed PMC

Garonzik-Wang JM, Brat G, Salazar JH, Dhanasopon A, Lin A, Akinkuotu A, et al. Missing consent forms in the preoperative area: A single-center assessment of the scope of the problem and its downstream effects. JAMA Surg. 2013; 148(9): 886–889. PubMed

Grauberger J, Kerezoudis P, Choudhry AJ, Alvi MA, Nassr A, Currier B, et al. Allegations of failure to obtain informed consent in spinal surgery medical malpractice claims. JAMA Surg. 2017; 152(6): 1–7. PubMed PMC

English RA, Lebovitz Y, Griffin RB. Transforming Clinical Research in the United States, Challenges and Opportunities: Workshop Summary. National Academies Press. 2010. p. 17. PubMed

NIH Policy and Guidelines on The Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research.

Hamel LM, Penner LA, Albrecht TL, Heath E, Gwede CK, Eggly S. Barriers to clinical trial enrollment in racial and ethnic minority patients with cancer. Cancer Control. 2016; 23(4): 327–337. PubMed PMC

Pinsky PF, Ford M, Gamito E, Higgins D, Jenkins V, Lamerato L, et al. Enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening trial. J Natl Med Assoc. 2008; 100(3): 291–298. PubMed

Welch BM, Marshall E, Qanungo S, Aziz A, Laken M, Lenert L, et al. Teleconsent: A novel approach to obtain informed consent for research. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2016; 3: 74–79. PubMed PMC

Newlin T, McCall T, Ottmar P, Welch B, Khairat S. Assessing the satisfaction of citizens using teleconsent in clinical research. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2018; 247: 685–689. PubMed

https://jointheconquest.org/

North Carolina Department of Commerce. Rural Center Expands Its Classification of North Carolina Counties.

Asghar MR, Lee TH, Baig MM, Ullah E, Russello G, Dobbie G. A review of privacy and consent management in healthcare: A focus on emerging data sources. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 13th International Conference on e-Science (e-Science); 2017 Oct 24–27; Auckland, New Zealand: IEEE; 2017: 518–522.

Sonne SC, Andrews JO, Gentilin SM, Oppenheimer S, Obeid J, Brady K, et al. Development and pilot testing of a video-assisted informed consent process. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013; 36(1): 25–31. PubMed PMC

Hagmajer D, Mainous III AG, Krieger JL, Golembiewski EH, Rahmanian KP, Harle CA, et al. Patient preferences toward an interactive e-consent application for research using electronic health records. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2017; 25(3): 360–368. PubMed PMC

Kongsholm NCH, Kappel K. Is Consent Based on Trust Morally Inferior to Consent Based on Information? Bioethics. 2017; 31(6): 432–442. PubMed

Kvedar J, Coye MJ, Everett W. Connected health: a review of technologies and strategies to improve patient care with telemedicine and telehealth. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014; 33(2): 194–199. PubMed

Sidani M, Reed BC, Steinbauer J. Geriatric Care Issues. Prim Care. 2016; 44: 77098. PubMed