The research team, prospective participants, and written materials all influence the success of the informed consent process. As digital health research becomes more prevalent, new challenges for successful informed consent are introduced. This exploratory research utilized a human centered design process in which 19 people were enrolled to participate in one of four online focus-groups. Participants discussed their experiences with informed consent, preferences for receiving study information and ideas about alternative consent approaches. Data were analyzed using qualitative methods. Six major themes and sixteen sub-themes were identified that included study information that prospective participants would like to receive, preferences for accessing information and a desire to connect with research team members. Specific to digital health, participants expressed a need to understand how the technologies worked and how the volume of granular personal information would be collected, stored, and shared.
AndersonE. E.IltisA. S. (2008). Assessing and improving research Participants’ understanding of risk: Potential lessons from the literature on physician-patient risk communication. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 3(3), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2008.3.3.27
2.
BalestraM.ShaerO.OkerlundJ.BallM.NovO. (2016). The effect of exposure to social annotation on online informed consent beliefs and behavior. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing, CSCW ’16 (pp. 900–912). Association for Computing Machinery.
3.
BlossC.NebekerC.BietzM.BaeD.BigbyB.DevereauxM.FowlerJ.WaldoA.WeibelN.PatrickK.KlemmerS.MelicharL. (2016). Reimagining human research protections for 21st century science. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(12), e6634. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6634
4.
BreeseP. E.BurmanW. J.GoldbergS.WeisS. E. (2007). Education level, primary language, and comprehension of the informed consent process. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 2(4), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2007.2.4.69
5.
BromleyE.Mendoza-GrafA.BerryS.NebekerC.KhodyakovD. (2020). From ‘informed’ to ‘engaged’ consent: Risks and obligations in consent for participation in a health data repository. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 48(1), 172–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110520917007
6.
CoravosA.GoldsackJ. C.KarlinD. R.NebekerC.PerakslisE.ZimmermanN.ErbM. K. (2019). Digital medicine: A primer on measurement. Digital Biomarkers, 3(2), 31–71. https://doi.org/10.1159/000500413
7.
CorneliA.SugarmanJ. (2017). Reducing consent form length: Stakeholder support, evidence-based strategies, and regulatory requirements. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 39(2), 18–20.
8.
de OliveiraL. L. H.VissociJ. R. N.de Lara MachadoW.RodriguesC. G.LimkakengA. T. (2017). Are well-informed potential trial participants more likely to participate?Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 12(5), 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264617737163
9.
DoerrM.GraysonS.MooreS.SuverC.WilbanksJ.WagnerJ. (2019). Implementing a universal informed consent process for the all of US research program. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 24, 427–438.
10.
DoerrM.MooreS.BaroneV.SutherlandS.BotB. M.SuverC.WilbanksJ. (2021). Assessment of the all of US research program’s informed consent process. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 12(2), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2020.1847214
11.
DoerrM.TruongA. M.BotB. M.WilbanksJ.SuverC.MangraviteL. M. (2017). Formative evaluation of participant experience with Mobile eConsent in the app-mediated Parkinson mPower study: A mixed methods study. JMIR mHealth and UHealth, 5(2), e14. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.6521
12.
DunseathS.WeibelN.BlossC. S.NebekerC. (2018). NIH Support of Mobile, imaging, pervasive sensing, social Media and location tracking (MISST) research: Laying the foundation to examine research ethics in the digital age. Npj Digital Medicine, 1(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-017-0001-5
13.
HoltzblattK.BeyerH. (2017). 6 – The affinity diagram. In HoltzblattK.BeyerH. (Eds.), Contextual design (second edition), interactive technologies (pp. 127–146). Morgan Kaufmann.
14.
KlitzmanR. L. (2013). How IRBs view and make decisions about consent forms. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 8(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2013.8.1.8
15.
LugerE.RoddenT. (2013). An informed view on consent for UbiComp. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing, UbiComp ’13 (pp. 529–538). Association for Computing Machinery.
16.
McNuttL.-A.WaltermaurerE.BednarczykR. A.CarlsonB. E.KotvalJ.McCauleyJ.CampbellJ. C.FordD. E. (2008). Are we misjudging how well informed consent forms are read?Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 3(1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2008.3.1.89
17.
MunteanuC.MolyneauxH.MoncurW.RomeroM.O’DonnellS.VinesJ. (2015) Situational ethics: Re-thinking approaches to formal ethics requirements for human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’15 (pp. 105–114). Association for Computing Machinery.
18.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Health Sciences Policy; Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation. (2019) Virtual clinical trials: Challenges and opportunities: Proceedings of a workshop. edited by C. Shore, E. Khandekar, and J. Alper. National Academies Press (US).
19.
NebekerC.LagareT.TakemotoM.LewarsB.CristK.BlossC. S.KerrJ. (2016). Engaging research participants to inform the ethical conduct of Mobile imaging, pervasive sensing, and location tracking research. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 6(4), 577–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-016-0426-4
QuinnS. C.GarzaM. A.ButlerJ.FryerC. S.CasperE. T.ThomasS. B.BarnardD.KimK. H. (2012). Improving informed consent with minority participants: Results from researcher and community surveys. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 7(5), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2012.7.5.44
22.
RayB.JacksonC.DucatE.HoA.HamonS.KreekM. J. (2011). Effect of ethnicity, gender and drug use history on achieving high rates of affirmative informed consent for genetics research: Impact of sharing with a national repository. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(6), 374–379. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.037671
23.
ReinhardtD.BorchardJ.HurtienneJ. (2021). Visual interactive privacy policy: The better choice? In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’21 (pp. 1–12). Association for Computing Machinery.
24.
RudnickaA.CoxA. L.GouldS. J. J. (2019) Why do you need this? Selective disclosure of data among citizen scientists. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’19 (pp. 1–11). Asssociation for Computing Machinery.
25.
WalkupJ.BockE. (2009). What do prospective research participants want to know? What do they assume they know already?Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 4(2), 59–63. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2009.4.2.59
26.
WillisG. (2006). Cognitive interviewing as a tool for improving the informed consent process. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 1(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.9
