Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The article covers electronic informed consent (eIC) from different dimensions so that practitioners might understand the history, regulation, and current status of eIC. It covers the transition of informed consent to electronic screens and the implications of that transition in terms of design, costs, and data analysis. The article explores the limits of regulation mandating eIC for mobile application research, and addresses some of the broader social context around eIC.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act), available at <https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/compliance/manual/10/x-3.1.pdf> (last visited February 14, 2020).

Electronic Transactions Act, available at <https://www.uniformlaws.org/committees/community-home/librarydocuments?communitykey=2c04b76c-2b7d-4399-977ed5876ba7e034&tab=librarydocuments> (last visited February 14, 2020).

Reed ,

J.A. S.

Carroll , and

Agramonte , “The Etiology of Yellow Fever: An Additional Note,” Journal of the American Medical Association 36, no. 7 (1901): 431-440.

Informed Consent Checklist, available at <https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/checklists/index.html> (last visited February 14, 2020).

The Belmont Report, available at <https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html> (last visited February 14, 2020).

21 C.F.R. § 11.1(a).

21 C.F.R. § 50.27(a).

45 C.F.R. § 46.116 and 21 CFR § 50.25.

10.

45 C.F.R. § 46.116(b)(5) and 21 CFR § 50.25(b)(5).

11.

45 C.F.R. § 46.116 and 21 CFR § 50.20.

12.

Required Elements of the Consent Form, available at <https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Informed-Consent-for-Genomics-Research/Required-Elements-of-Consent-Form> (last visited February 14, 2020).

13.

21 C.F.R. § 11.100(b).

14.

Use of Electronic Informed Consent in Clinical Investigations — Questions and Answers, available at <https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/use-electronic-informed-consent-clinical-investigations-questions-and-answers> (last visited February 14, 2020).

15.

E.W.

Clayton

, “The Unbearable Requirement of Informed Consent” (2019), a comment on “Exploring Understanding of ‘Understanding’: The Paradigm Case of Biobank Consent Comprehension,” American Journal of Bioethics 19, no. 5 (2019): 6-18.

16.

Obtaining Consent, available at <http://researchkit.org/docs/docs/InformedConsent/InformedConsent.html> (last visited October 29, 2019).

17.

45 C.F.R. § 46.115; 21 C.F.R. § 56.115.

18.

Collaborative Projects — EDM Forum, available at <https://www.edmforumresearchportal.org/edmhome/collaborate/collaborativeprojects> (last visited October 29, 2019).

19.

Wilbanks

, “Portable Approaches to Informed Consent and Open Data,” Privacy, Big Data, and the Public Good: Frameworks for Engagement 1 (2014): 234-252.

20.

Wilbanks

, “Design Issues in E-Consent,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 46, no. 1 (2018): 110-18.

21.

Doerr ,

Suver , and

Wilbanks , “Developing a Transparent, Participant-Navigated Electronic Informed Consent for Mobile-Mediated Research,” available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2769129> (last visited February 14, 2020).

22.

GitHub —Sage-Bionetworks, “PCC-Toolkit,” available at <https://github.com/Sage-Bionetworks/PCC-Toolkit> (last visited February 14, 2020).

23.

Elements of Informed Consent, available at <https://sage-bionetworks.org/tools_resources/elements-of-informed-consent/> (last visited February 14, 2020).

24.

B.M.

Bot

et al., “The mPower Study, Parkinson Disease Mobile Data Collected Using ResearchKit,” Scientific Data 3 (2016): 1-9.

25.

Developer Human Interface Guidelines, available at <https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/researchkit/overview/introduction/> (last visited February 14, 2020).

26.

ResearchStack, available at <http://researchstack.org/> (last visited February).

27.

See Wilbanks, supra note 19.

28.

C.M.

Gray

et al., “The Dark (Patterns) Side of UX Design,” in Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM (2018): 534.

29.

See id.

30.

Senators Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Ban Manipulative

“Dark Patterns,”

available at <https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/4/senators-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-to-ban-manipulative-dark-patterns> (last visited October 29, 2019).

31.

Sand ,

Stein , and

J.H.

Loge , “The Understanding of Informed Consent Information—Definitions and Measurements in Empirical Studies,” AJOB Primary Research 1, no. 2 (2010): 4-24.

32.

L.M.

Beskow and

K.P.

Weinfurt , “Exploring Understanding of ‘Understanding’: The Paradigm Case of Biobank Consent Comprehension,” American Journal of Bioethics 19, no. 5 (2019): 6-18.

33.

ResearchKit Apps and Studies Launched in 2016, available at <http://blog.appliedinformaticsinc.com/researchkit-appsand-studies-launched-in-2016/> (last visited October 29, 2019).

34.

FocalView — Redefining Ophthamology Clinical Research, available at <http://researchkit.org/blog.html#article-32> (last visited October 29, 2019).

35.

J.A.

Obar and

Oeldorf-Hirsch , “The Biggest Lie on the Internet: Ignoring the Privacy Policies and Terms of Service Policies of Social Networking Services,” Information, Communication & Society (2018): 1-20.

36.

Steinfeld

, “I Agree to the Terms and Conditions: (How) Do Users Read Privacy Policies Online? An Eye-tracking Experiment,” Computers in Human Behavior 55-Part B (2016): 992-1000.

37.

Moore

et al., “Consent Processes for Mobile App Mediated Research: Systematic Review,” JMIR mHealth and uHealth 5, no. 8 (2017): e126.

38.

See Doerr, supra note 21.

39.

Benham-Hutchins

et al., “‘I Want to Know Everything’: A Qualitative Study Of Perspectives from Patients with Chronic Diseases on Sharing Health Information During Hospitalization,” BMC Health Services Research 17, no. 1 (2017): 529.

40.

A Big Step Towards Giving Patients Control Over Their Health Care Data, available at <https://hbr.org/2019/03/a-big-step-toward-giving-patients-control-over-their-health-care-data> (last visited February 14, 2020).

41.

C. H.

Wilkins

et al., “Understanding What Information Is Valued by Research Participants, and Why,” Health Affairs 38, no. 3 (2019): 399-407.

42.

See Clayton, supra note 15.

43.

Wilkins et al., supra note 41.

44.

Nebeker ,

Linares-Orozco , and

Crist , “A Multi-Case Study of Research Using Mobile Imaging, Sensing and Tracking Technologies to Objectively Measure Behavior: Ethical Issues and Insights to Guide Responsible Research Practice,” Journal of Research Administration 46, no. 1 (2015): 118-137.

45.

C.E.

Schairer ,

C.K.

Rubanovich , and

C.S.

Bloss , “How Could Commercial Terms of Use and Privacy Policies Undermine Informed Consent in the Age of Mobile Health?” AMA Journal of Ethics 20, no. 9 (2018): 864-872.

46.

Greig and

Irvine , “Privacy Implications of Wearable Health Devices,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Security of Information and Networks, ACM (2014): at 117.

47.

J. R.

Reidenberg

et al., “Disagreeable Privacy Policies: Mismatches Between Meaning and Users’ Understanding,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 30, no. 1 (2015): 39-88.

48.

See Obar, supra note 35.

49.

“Privacy Icons: Alpha Release,”

available at <http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/privacy-icons/> (last visited October 29, 2019).

50.

Gropper

, “Patient Privacy Rights Information Governance Label,” August 19, 2019, available at <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3439701> (last visited February 14, 2020).

51.

“Privacy Toolkit,”

available at <https://privacytoolkit.sagebio-networks.org/> (last visited February 14, 2020).

52.

“AI-Powered Privacy Policies,”

available at <https://pribot.org/> (last visited February 14, 2020).

53.

Vaidhyanathan and

Bulock , “Knowledge and Dignity in the Era of ‘Big Data,’” The Serials Librarian 66, no. 1-4 (2014): 49-64.

54.

Greenberg

et al., “Dark Patterns in Proxemic Interactions: A Critical Perspective,” in Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems, ACM (2014): 523-532.

55.

“CRF Health: eConsent Adoption to Reach 82% by 2020,”

available at <https://www.outsourcing-pharma.com/Article/2017/03/16/eConsent-adoption-to-reach-82-by-2020-CRF-Health> (last visited February 14, 2020).

56.

“About the Framingham Heart Study Participants,”

available at <https://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/about-the-fhs-participants/> (last visited February 14, 2020).

57.

The Director of the NIH Lays Out His Vision of the Future of Medical Science,”

available at <https://time.com/5709207/medical-science-age-of-discovery/> (last visited February 14, 2020).

58.

“Data — AllofUs Research Hub,”

available at <https://www.researchallofus.org/data/> (last visited February 14, 2020).

59.

M.V.

McConnell

et al., “Feasibility of Obtaining Measures of Lifestyle From a Smartphone App: The MyHeart Counts Cardiovascular Health Study,” JAMA Cardiology 2, no. 1 (2017): 67-76.

60.

Pratap

et al., “Indicators of Retention in Remote Digital Health Studies: A Cross-Study Evaluation of 100,000 Participants,” available at <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.01165> (last visited February 14, 2020).

61.

M.N.

Meyer

, “Ethical Considerations When Companies Study — and Fail to Study — Their Customers,” The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Privacy (2018): 207.

62.

Metcalf and

Crawford , “Where Are Human Subjects in Big Data Research? The Emerging Ethics Divide,” Big Data & Society 3, no. 1 (2016): 1-14.

63.

P.R.

Heck

et al., “Sometimes People Dislike Experiments More than They Dislike Their Worst Conditions: Within-Subjects Evidence for ‘Experiment Aversion’ and the A/B Effect,” PsyArXiv (2019), available at <https://psyarxiv.com/jmxgc> (last visited February 14, 2020).

64.

Cadwalladr and

Graham-Harrison , “Revealed: 50 Million Facebook Profiles Harvested for Cambridge Analytica in Major Data Breach,” The Guardian (March 17, 2018).

65.

González

et al., “Global Reactions to the Cambridge Analytica Scandal: An Inter-Language Social Media Study,” WWW ’19 Companion, available at <https://faculty.washington.edu/aragon/pubs/LA_WEB_Paper.pdf> (last visited February 14, 2020).

66.

Ajunwa ,

Crawford , and

Schultz , “Limitless Worker Surveillance,” California Law Review 105, no. 3 (2017): 735-776.

67.

Funk

, “How ICE Picks Its Targets in the Surveillance Age,” The New York Times Magazine, available at <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/magazine/ice-surveillance-deportation.html> (last visited February 14, 2020).

68.

Dickerson

, “U.S. Government Plans to Collect DNA From Detained Immigrants,” New York Times, available at <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/dna-testing-immigrants.html> (last visited February 14, 2020).

69.

Geekwire, “FTC Files First-Ever Charges Against Company Accused of Paying for Fake Amazon Reviews,” available at <https://www.geekwire.com/2019/ftc-files-first-ever-charges-company-accused-paying-fake-amazon-reviews/> (last visited February 14, 2020).

70.

“New York Arm-wrestling Legend and His Mom Arrested for Selling ‘Apricots From God’ as Bogus Cancer Cure,”

The Washington Post, available at <https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/24/jason-vale-apricot-seeds-cancer-cure-arrest-arm-wrestling/> (last visited February 14, 2020).

71.

Boyd and

Crawford , “Critical Questions for Big Data: Provocations for a Cultural, Technological, and Scholarly Phenomenon,” Information, Communication & Society 15, no. 5 (2012): 662-679.

72.

See Clayton, supra note 15.

73.

S.T.

Fiske and

R.M.

Hauser , “Protecting Human Research Participants in the Age of Big Data,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111, no. 38 (2014): 13675-13676.

Electronic Informed Consent in Mobile Applications Research

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References