Informed consent (IC) is the process of communication between research staff and potential research participants. However, ensuring that participants clearly understand what research participation entails, raises significant challenges. The aim of this study is to provide insight into some communication barriers that research staff are confronted with and make practical recommendations to improve communication between research staff and participants. A qualitative research study using semi-structured interviews (n = 13) with research staff from Ghent University Hospital was conducted. Data were transcribed verbatim and coded thematically. Our results indicate that communication- and process-related factors affect the IC process. Emergent recommendations include communication training, more interactive information materials and the use of digital alternatives, increasing general knowledge about research participation and patient- and public involvement.
BaikS. H.ArevaloM.GwedeC.MeadeC. D.JacobsenP. B.QuinnG. P.WellsK. J. (2016). Development and validation of the biomedical research trust scale (BRTS) in English and spanish. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(4), 346–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616668973
3.
BesterJ.ColeC. M.KodishE. (2016). The limits of informed consent for an overwhelmed patient: Clinicians’ role in protecting patients and preventing overwhelm. AMA Journal of Ethics, 18(9), 869–886. https://doi.org/10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.9.peer2-1609
CaballeroA.LeathK. J.GanJ. M. (2021, Sep 30). Institutional improvements in readability of written informed consent forms sustained post-revised common rule. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 5(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.860
ChoiY. J.BeckS.-H.KangW. Y.YooS.KimS.-Y.LeeJ. S., … KimT. W. (2016). Knowledge and perception about clinical research shapes behavior: Face to face survey in Korean general public. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 31(5), 674–681. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.5.674
Corbie-SmithG.ThomasS. B.WilliamsM. V.Moody-AyersS. (1999). Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 14(9), 537. https://doi.org/10.1046/J.1525-1497.1999.07048.X
DavisT. C.LongS. W.JacksonR. H.MayeauxE. J.GeorgeR. B.MurphyP. W.CrouchM. A. (1993). Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine: A shortened screening instrument. Family Medicine, 25(6), 391–395. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8349060
12.
de la Mora-MolinaH.Barajas-OchoaA.Sandoval-GarciaL.Navarrete-LorenzonM.Castañeda-BarraganE. A.Castillo-OrtizJ. D., … Ramos-RemusC. (2018). Trends of informed consent forms for industry-sponsored clinical trials in rheumatology over a 17-year period: Readability, and assessment of patients’ health literacy and perceptions. Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, 48(3), 547–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2018.03.008
13.
de Melo-MartínI.HoA. (2008). Beyond informed consent: The therapeutic misconception and trust. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(3), 202–205. https://doi.org/10.1136/JME.2006.019406
14.
EmanuelE. J.BoyleC. W. (2021). Assessment of length and readability of informed consent documents for COVID-19 vaccine trials. JAMA Network Open, 4(4), e2110843. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.10843
15.
EmanuelE. J.WendlerD.KillenJ.GradyC. (2004, March 1). What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 189(5), 930–937. Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1086/381709
16.
European Medicines Agency (EMA). (2018). Guideline good clinical practice E6(R2). Committee for Human Medicinal Products, 6(December 2016), 1–68. Retrieved fromwww.ema.europa.eu/contact
17.
FalagasM. E.KorbilaI. P.GiannopoulouK. P.KondilisB. K.PeppasG. (2009). Informed consent: How much and what do patients understand?American Journal of Surgery, 198(3), 420–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.02.010
18.
FloryJ.EmanuelE. (2004). Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 292(13), 1593–1601. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.13.1593
19.
GesualdoF.DaverioM.PalazzaniL.DimitriouD.Diez-DomingoJ.Fons-MartinezJ., … TozziA. E. (2021). Digital tools in the informed consent process: A systematic review. BMC Medical Ethics, 22(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12910-021-00585-8
20.
GetzK. A. (2013). Impact of in-pharmacy education on patients’ knowledge and attitudes about clinical trials. Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science, 47(3), 336–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479013478953
21.
GlaserJ.NouriS.FernandezA.SudoreR. L.SchillingerD.Klein-FedyshinM.SchenkerY. (2020). Interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent for medical and surgical procedures: An updated systematic review. Medical Decision Making : An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 40(2), 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X19896348
22.
GradyC. (2015). Enduring and emerging challenges of informed consent. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(9), 855–862. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1411250
23.
GulR. B.AliP. A. (2010). Clinical trials: The challenge of recruitment and retention of participants. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19(1–2), 227–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03041.x
JenkinsV.FallowfieldL.Solis-TrapalaI.LangridgeC.FarewellV. (2005). Discussing randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy: Evaluation of a cancer research UK training programme. British Medical Journal, 330(7488), 400–403. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38366.562685.8F
26.
JoffeS.CookE. F.ClearyP. D.ClarkJ. W.WeeksJ. C. (2001). Quality of informed consent: A new measure of understanding among research subjects. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 93(2), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/93.2.139
27.
KadamR. A. (2017). Informed consent process: A step further towards making it meaningful!Perspectives in Clinical Research, 8(3), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.PICR_147_16
28.
KerasidouA. (2016). Trust me, i’m a researcher!: The role of trust in biomedical research. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 20(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11019-016-9721-6
29.
KickbuschI.PelikanJ.ApfelF.TsourosA. (2013). Health literacy: The solid facts. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for …, 7–8. Retrieved fromhttps://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/326432
30.
KoyfmanS. A.ReddyC. A.HizlanS.LeekA. C.KodishE. D. (2016). Informed consent conversations and documents: A quantitative comparison. Cancer, 122(3), 464–469. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29759
31.
LentzJ.KennettM.PerlmutterJ.ForrestA. (2016). Paving the way to a more effective informed consent process: Recommendations from the clinical trials transformation initiative. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 49, 65–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2016.06.005
32.
LindeggerG.MilfordC.RanchodC.SlackC. (2006). Potential behavioural and psychological contributions to ethical HIV vaccine trials in South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 36(4), 715–733. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630603600405
33.
LorellB. H.MikitaJ. S.AndersonA.HallinanZ. P.ForrestA. (2015). Informed consent in clinical research: Consensus recommendations for reform identified by an expert interview panel. Clinical Trials, 12(6), 692–695. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774515594362
34.
MacKenzieI. S.WeiL.RutherfordD.FindlayE. A.SaywoodW.CampbellM. K.MacDonaldT. M. (2010). Promoting public awareness of randomised clinical trials using the media: The “get randomised” campaign. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 69(2), 128–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03561.x
35.
MainousA. G.SmithD. W.GeeseyM. E.TilleyB. C. (2006). Development of a measure to assess patient trust in medical researchers. Annals of Family Medicine, 4(3), 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.541
36.
MarshV.KamuyaD.RowaY.GikonyoC.MolyneuxS. (2008). Beginning community engagement at a busy biomedical research programme: Experiences from the KEMRI CGMRC-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya. Social Science & Medicine(1982), 67(5), 721. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2008.02.007
37.
MontalvoW.LarsonE. (2014). Participant comprehension of research for which they volunteer: A systematic review. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 46(6), 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12097
38.
MunleyB.BuserA. T.GaudreauS.BreaultJ. L.BazzanoL. A. (2018). An analysis of informed consent form readability of oncology research protocols. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13(4), 363–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264618795057
39.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1978). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. In The Belmont Report. Retrieved fromhttps://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html
40.
NijhawanL. P.JanodiaM. D.MuddukrishnaB. S.BhatK. M.BairyK. L.UdupaN.MusmadeP. 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
41.
NishimuraA.CareyJ.ErwinP. J.TilburtJ. C.MuradM. H.McCormickJ. B. (2013). Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: A systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. BMC Medical Ethics, 14(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-14-28
42.
O’SullivanL.FeeneyL.CrowleyR. K.SukumarP.McAuliffeE.DoranP. (2021). An evaluation of the process of informed consent: Views from research participants and staff. Trials, 22(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13063-021-05493-1/FIGURES/5
43.
PietrzykowskiT.SmilowskaK. (2021). The reality of informed consent: empirical studies on patient comprehension-systematic review. Trials, 22, 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13063-020-04969-W
44.
RondiaK.AdriaenssensJ.Van den BrouckeS.KohnL. (2019). Health literacy : what lessons can be learned from the experiences of other countries ?Retrieved fromwww.kce.fgov.be
45.
SlegersC.ZionD.GlassD.KelsallH.FritschiL.BrownN.LoffB. (2015). Why do people participate in epidemiological research?Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 12(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11673-015-9611-2
46.
SørensenK.Van Den BrouckeS.FullamJ.DoyleG.PelikanJ.SlonskaZ.BrandH. (2012). Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health, 12(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-80/TABLES/4
47.
SugarmanJ.LavoriP. W.BoegerM.CainC.EdsonR.MorrisonV.YehS. S. (2005). Evaluating the quality of informed consent. Clinical Trials, 2(1), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1191/1740774505cn066oa
48.
SugarmanJ.McCroryD. C.HubalR. C. (1998). Getting meaningful informed consent from older adults: A structured literature review of empirical research. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 46(4), 517–524. Blackwell Publishing Inc.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1998.tb02477.x
49.
TongA.SainsburyP.CraigJ. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
XuA.BaysariM. T.StockerS. L.LeowL. J.DayR. O.CarlandJ. E. (2020). Researchers’ views on, and experiences with, the requirement to obtain informed consent in research involving human participants: A qualitative study. BMC Medical Ethics, 21(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00538-7
52.
YarboroughM. (2021). Using the concept of “deserved trust” to strengthen the value and integrity of biomedical research. Accountability in Research, 28(7), 456–469. Account Res.https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1855427
53.
ZimmermannA.PilarskaA.Gaworska-KrzemińskaA.JankauJ.CohenM. N. (2021). Written informed consent—translating into plain language. A pilot study. Healthcare (Switzerland), 9(2), 232. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9020232
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
