Informed Consent for Online Research—Is Anybody Reading?: Assessing Comprehension and Individual Differences in Readings of Digital Consent Forms

Abstract

Informed consent is an important part of the research process; however, some participants either do not read or skim the consent form. When participants do not read or comprehend informed consent, then they may not understand the potential benefits, risks, or details of the study before participating. This study used previous research to develop experimentally manipulated online consent forms utilizing various presentations of the consent form and interactive elements. Participants (n = 576) were randomly exposed to one of six form variations. Results found that the highly interactive condition was significantly better for comprehension than any of the other conditions. The highly interactive condition also performed better for readability, though not significantly. Further research should explore the effects of interactive elements to combat habituation and to engage participants with the parts of the consent form unique to the study.

Keywords

informed consent consent forms research ethics committee/IRB review comprehension interactivity self-efficacy trust

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abujarad

Alfano

Bright

T. J.

Kannoth

Grant

Gueble

Peduzzi

Chupp

(2018). Building an informed consent tool starting with the patient: The patient-centered virtual multimedia interactive informed consent (VIC). AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings (Vol. 2017, p. 374-383). American Medical Informatics Association.

Anderson

E. E.

Newman

S. B.

Matthews

A. K.

(2017). Improving informed consent: Stakeholder views. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 8(3), 178-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2017.1362488

Antonacopoulos

N. M. D.

Serin

R. C.

(2016). Comprehension of online informed consents: Can it be improved? Ethics & Behavior, 26(3), 177-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.1000458

Assale

Barbero

Cabitza

(2019). Digitizing the informed consent: The challenges to design for practices. 2019 IEEE 32nd International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS), 609-615. https://doi.org/10.1109/CBMS.2019.00127

Bandura

(1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729-735.

Bandura

(1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3

Benegal

S. D.

Scruggs

L. A.

(2018). Correcting misinformation about climate change: The impact of partisanship in an experimental setting. Climatic Change, 148(1), 61-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2192-4

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bravo-Lillo

Cranor

Komanduri

Schechter

Sleeper

(2014). Harder to ignore? Revisiting pop-up fatigue and approaches to prevent it. In 10th Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security ({SOUPS} 2014) (pp. 105-111). https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2014/proceedings/presentation/bravo-lillo

10.

Chang

Krosnick

J. A.

(2009). National surveys via Rdd telephone interviewing versus the internet: Comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(4), 641-678. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp075

11.

Corbie-Smith

Thomas

S. B.

Williams

M. V.

Moody-Ayers

(1999). Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 14(9), 537-546. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.07048.x

12.

Critchley

C. R.

(2008). Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 309-327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070162

13.

Donovan-Kicken

Mackert

Guinn

T. D.

Tollison

A. C.

Breckinridge

Pont

S. J.

(2012). Health literacy, self-efficacy, and patients’ assessment of medical disclosure and consent documentation. Health Communication, 27(6), 581-590. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.618434

14.

Earl

C. E.

Penney

P. J.

(2001). The significance of trust in the research consent process with African Americans. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 23(7), 753-762. https://doi.org/10.1177/01939450122045528

15.

Flory

Emanuel

(2004). Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: A systematic review. JAMA, 292(13), 1593-1601. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.13.1593

16.

Foe

Larson

E. L.

(2016). Reading level and comprehension of research consent forms: An integrative review. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(1), 31-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616637483

17.

Friedman

Lin

Miller

J. K.

(2005). Informed consent by design. In Cranor

Garfinkel

(Eds.), Designing secure systems that people can use (pp. 495-521). O’Reilly and Associates.

18.

Funk

Hefferon

Kennedy

Johnson

(2019a, August 2). Trust and mistrust in americans’ views of scientific experts. Pew Research Center Science & Society. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts/

19.

Funk

Johnson

Hefferon

(2019b, August 5). 5 key findings about public trust in scientists in the U.S. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/05/5-key-findings-about-public-trust-in-scientists-in-the-u-s/

20.

George

Duran

Norris

(2014). A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2), e16-e31. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301706

21.

Hadden

K. B.

Prince

L. Y.

Moore

T. D.

James

L. P.

Holland

J. R.

Trudeau

C. R.

(2018). Improving readability of informed consents for research at an academic medical institution. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 1(6), 361-365. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2017.312

22.

Holman

M. R.

Lay

J. C.

(2019). They see dead people (voting): Correcting misperceptions about voter fraud in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Journal of Political Marketing, 18(1–2), 31-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2018.1478656

23.

Hong

Velozo

C. A.

C.-Y.

Romero

Gruber-Baldini

A. L.

Shulman

L. M.

(2016). Assessment of the psychometrics of a PROMIS item bank: Self-efficacy for managing daily activities. Quality of Life Research, 25(9), 2221-2232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1270-1

24.

Kane

E. I. K.

Gallo

J. J.

(2017). Perspectives of IRB chairs on the informed consent process. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 8(2), 137-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2016.1253628

25.

Karegar

Gerber

Volkamer

Fischer-Hübner

(2018). Helping john to make informed decisions on using social login. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, 1165-1174. https://doi.org/10.1145/3167132.3167259

26.

Kim

Young

A. J.

Neimeyer

R. A.

Baker

J. N.

Barfield

R. C.

(2008). Keeping users at the center: Developing a multimedia interface for informed consent. Technical Communication Quarterly, 17(3), 335-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572250802100451

27.

Kumar

N. K.

(2013). Informed consent: Past and present. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 4(1), 21-25. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.106372

28.

Lindegren

Karegar

Kane

Pettersson

J. S.

(2019). An evaluation of three designs to engage users when providing their consent on smartphones. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(4), 398-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1697898

29.

Lustria

M. L. A.

(2007). Can interactivity make a difference? Effects of interactivity on the comprehension of and attitudes toward online health content. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(6), 766-776. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20557

30.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html

31.

Nijhawan

L. P.

Janodia

M. D.

Muddukrishna

B. S.

Bhat

K. M.

Bairy

K. L.

Udupa

Musmade

P. B.

(2013). Informed consent: Issues and challenges. Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology & Research, 4(3), 134-140. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-4040.116779

32.

Ogungbure

A. A.

(2011). The Tuskegee syphilis study: Some ethical reflections. Thought and Practice, 3(2), 75-92. https://doi.org/10.4314/tp.v3i2

33.

Perrault

E. K.

Keating

D. M.

(2017). Seeking ways to inform the uninformed: Improving the informed consent process in online social science research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13(1), 50-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264617738846

34.

Perrault

E. K.

McCullock

S. P.

(2019). Concise consent forms appreciated—still not comprehended: Applying revised common rule guidelines in online studies. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 14(4), 299-306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619853453

35.

Perrault

E. K.

Nazione

S. A.

(2016). Informed consent—uninformed participants: Shortcomings of online social science consent forms and recommendations for improvement. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(3), 274-280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616654610

36.

Peterson

B. T.

Clancy

S. J.

Champion

McLarty

J. W.

(1992). Improving readability of consent forms: What the computers may not tell you. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 14(6), 6-8. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/3563853

37.

Rodriguez del Pozo

(2013). Knowledge, attitudes and behaviors of patients towards informed consent in Qatar: Early results from semi-structured interviews. In Qatar Foundation Annual Research Forum, 2013(1), BIOP-0159. https://doi.org/10.5339/qfarf.2013.BIOP-0159

38.

Rowbotham

M. C.

Astin

Greene

Cummings

S. R.

(2013). Interactive informed consent: Randomized comparison with paper consents. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e58603. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058603

39.

Satyanarayana Rao

K. H.

(2008). Informed consent: An ethical obligation or legal compulsion? Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery, 1(1), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-2077.41159

40.

Smirnoff

Wilets

Ragin

D. F.

Adams

Holohan

Rhodes

Winkel

Ricci

E. M.

Clesca

Richardson

L. D.

(2018). A paradigm for understanding trust and mistrust in medical research: The community VOICES study. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 9(1), 39-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2018.1432718

41.

Valle-Mansilla

J. I.

Ruiz-Canela

Sulmasy

D. P.

(2010). Patients’ attitudes to informed consent for genomic research with donated samples. Cancer Investigation, 28(7), 726-734. https://doi.org/10.3109/07357907.2010.494320

42.

Varnhagen

C. K.

Gushta

Daniels

Peters

T. C.

Parmar

Law

Hirsch

Takach

B. S.

Johnson

(2005). How informed is online informed consent? Ethics & Behavior, 15(1), 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1501_3

43.

Washington

H. A.

(2006). Medical apartheid: The dark history of medical experimentation on black Americans from colonial times to the present. Doubleday.

44.

Whaley

(2001). Cultural mistrust: An important psychological construct for diagnosis and treatment of African Americans. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32(6), 555-562. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.32.6.555

45.

Whitehead

Shaver

Stephenson

(2016). Outness, stigma, and primary health care utilization among rural LGBT populations. PLoS ONE, 11(1), e0146139. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146139

46.

Wynne

(2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics; Basel, 9(3), 211-220. https://doi.org/10.1159/000092659