Context Although informed consent is a critical means of protecting the rights and interests of participants in clinical research, effective and efficient means of evaluating the quality of consent are needed. Having such means will be important to monitoring consent and testing potential improvements in the consent process. Objective To develop and test a practical and general means of evaluating the quality of informed consent for clinical research.
Methods We developed and tested the Brief Informed Consent Evaluation Protocol (BICEP), a short telephone-based assessment of informed consent. As soon as patient-participants completed the informed consent process for a participating VA Cooperative Studies Program clinical trial they called an interviewer who administered the BICEP.
Results 632 participants completed BICEP, representing eight ongoing studies from 14 VA and one non-VA medical centers across the country. Site coordinators reported little to no difficulty implementing BICEP. The average duration of BICEP was 8.8 minutes (SD 3.6). Overall, patient-participants evaluated the informed consent process positively. A reliable coding system was then developed to analyze the verbatim responses of the final 191 participants. An Informed Consent Aggregate Score (ICAS) had a mean score of 8.23 (SD 1.17) with a range of 0–10, with 10 a perfect score; and a Therapeutic Misconception Aggregate Score (TMAS) had a mean of 1.62 (SD 0.93) with a range of 0–5, with 5 a perfect score.
Conclusions The BICEP is an efficient means of evaluating informed consent that is acceptable to research participants and research personnel. While participants tend to be satisfied with the informed consent process, the BICEP indicates there is room for improvement in the informed consent process for research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Steinbrook R. Improving protection for research subjects. N Engl J Med2002; 346: 1425–1430.
2.
2. Shalala D. Protecting research subjects – what must be done. N Engl J Med. 2000; 343: 808–810.
3.
3. Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Institutional review boards: a time for reform. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; DHHS Publication OEI-97-00193, 1998.
4.
4. Association of American Medical Colleges, Task Force on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research. Protecting subjects, preserving trust, promoting progress: policy and guidelines for the oversight of individual financial interests in human subjects research. Washington, DC: AAMC, 2002.
5.
5. Association of American Medical Colleges, Task Force on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research. Protecting subjects, preserving trust, promoting progress II: principles and recommendations for oversight of an institution's financial interests in human subjects research. Washington, DC: AAMC, 2002.
6.
6. Institute of Medicine (US). Responsible research: a systems approach to protecting research participants. Washington, DC: The Institute, 2002.
7.
7. RFA: OD-97-001. Informed consent in research involving human participants. NIH Guide, 25, 1996. Available at http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-OD-97-001.html. Accessed 24 November 2003.
8.
8. PA-02-103. Research on ethical issues in human studies. Release date: 1 May 2002. Accessed 24 November 2003. Available at http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-02-103.html. Accessed 24 November 2003.
9.
9. Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs. Final standards. Available from URL: http://www.aahrpp.org/images/standards.PDF. Accessed 24 November 2003.
10.
10. Partnership for Human Research Protection, Inc.About PHRP. Available from URL: http://www.phrp.org/e3front.dll?durki=4002&site=54&return=3990.
11.
11. 45 Code of Federal Regulations 46.116–7.
12.
12. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford U Press, 1986.
13.
13. Sugarman J, McCrory DC, Hubal RC. Getting meaningful informed consent from older persons: a structured literature review of empirical research. J Amer Geriatr Soc1998; 46: 517–524.
14.
14. Sugarman J, McCrory DC, Powell D et al. Empirical research on informed consent. Hastings Cent Rep1999; 29(suppl): S1–S42.
15.
15. Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research. JAMA2004; 292: 1593–1601.
16.
16. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW, Benson P, Winslade W. False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Cent Rep1987; 17: 20–24.
17.
17. Lavori PW, Sugarman J, Hays MT, Feussner JR. Improving informed consent in clinical trials: a duty to experiment. Control Clin Trials1999; 20: 187–193.
18.
18. King NMP. Defining and describing benefit appropriately in clinical trials. J Law Med Ethics2000; 28: 332–343.
19.
19. Sachs GA, Hougham GW, Sugarman J et al. Conducting empirical research on informed consent: challenges and questions. IRB2003; suppl 25: S4–S10.
20.
20. Agre P, Campbell FA, Goldman BD et al. Improving informed consent: the medium is not the message. IRB2003; suppl 25: S11–S19.
21.
21. Appelbaum PS, Grisso T, Frank E et al. Competence of depressed patients for consent to research. Am J.Psychiatry1999; 156: 1380–1384.
22.
22. Kodish E, Eder M, Noll RB et al. Communication of randomization in childhood leukemia trials. JAMA2004; 291: 470–475.
