Background Participants' understanding of clinical trials is important in informed consent. However, little is known about what information participants really want to know. Aims To demonstrate the existence of a discrepancy between participants' understanding and their desire to know. Methods The participants in clinical trials at Seoul National University Hospital were surveyed. The survey consisted of 11 statements based on the essential elements of informed consent. The participants gave two responses to each statement on a five-point (...) Likert scale to rate their subjective understanding and desire to know, respectively. Information discrepancy was defined as the difference between these two ratings: if understanding exceeded desire to know for a particular item, it was defined as ‘over-informed’; if desire to know exceeded understanding for a particular item, it was defined as ‘under-informed’. Results Participants reported good understanding of ‘voluntariness’, ‘duration’, ‘study involves research’ and poor understanding of ‘confidentiality’, ‘compensation’, ‘benefits’, ‘procedures’ and ‘risks or discomforts’. For ‘risks or discomforts’, ‘who to contact’, ‘voluntariness’, ‘duration’ and ‘procedures’, participants reported high desire to know compared with ‘confidentiality’, ‘purpose’, ‘study involves research’ and ‘benefits’. The elements ‘study involves research’, ‘voluntariness’, ‘duration’, ‘purpose’ and ‘who to contact’ were over-informed, while ‘compensation’, ‘risks or discomforts’, ‘procedures’, ‘confidentiality’ and ‘benefits’ were under-informed. Participants over 50 years of age, those without a college education and those whose participation was less voluntary were relatively less informed about the clinical trials. Conclusions An information discrepancy was observed between the participants' understanding and their desire to know. By putting more emphasis on under-informed elements, the quality of informed consent could be improved. (shrink)

There is a need for empirically based research on social and ethical challenges related to informed consent processes, particularly in studies focusing on adolescent sexual and reproductive health. In a pilot study of a school-based pregnancy prevention intervention in rural Zambia, the majority of the guardians who were asked to consent to their daughters’ participation, refused. In this paper we explore the reasons behind the low participation in the pilot with particular attention to challenges related to the (...) community engagement and informed consent process. The pilot was implemented in two schools and examined the acceptability of a package of interventions including economic support to families to keep their girls in school, pocket money for girls, youth club meetings on reproductive health, and community meetings to sensitize the community. Focus group discussions were conducted with girls who participated in the pilot, boys in their class and with parents. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with teachers, peer educators and community health workers involved in the coordination of the intervention as well as with religious and traditional leaders. Data were analyzed through thematic analysis. The findings indicate that inadequate use of recognized community communication channels during the community engagement process and dissemination of information about the pilot resulted in limited understanding of the pilot concept by the community. This surfaced through uncertainty and fear that the intervention may result in loss of control over daughters, worries about why money was provided unconditionally to girls, and suspicion of links to satanism. The sense of insecurity appeared to be exacerbated by low literacy levels, poverty, fear of loss of bride wealth, perceived disregard for local perceptions of social status, and scanty trust in the actors implementing the pilot. Inadequate use of locally appropriate channels in the dissemination of information created room for interpretation and facilitated development of mistrust, undermining the conditions for community engagement and actual informed consent. A key lesson learnt is the importance of taking seriously the complexity of local values and structures that may impact people’s capability to consent or not consent to a study in an informed manner. (shrink)

Women wishing hospital admission for childbirth are asked to sign very general pre-admission consent forms. The use of such forms suggests that women in labor are considered incompetent to give informed consent. This paper explores some of the problems with advance directives and general consent, and argues that since women in labor are not generally incompetent, it is not appropriate to require this kind of consent of them.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to lay out an approach to addressing the problem of privacy protection in the global digital environment based on the importance that information has to improve users’ informational self-determination. Following this reasoning, this paper focuses on the suitable way to provide user with the correct amount of information they may need to maintain a desirable grade of autonomy as far as their privacy protection is concerned and decide whether or not to put their (...) personal data on the internet. Design/methodology/approach The authors arrive at this point in their analysis by qualitative discourse analysis of the most relevant scientific papers and dossiers relating to privacy protection. Findings The goal of this paper is twofold. The first is to illustrate the importance of privacy by default and informed consent working together to protect information and communication technology users’ privacy. The second goal is to develop a suitable way to administrate the mentioned “informed consent” to users. Originality/value To fulfil this purpose, the authors present a new concept of informed consent: active “informed consent” or “Opt-in” model by layers. “Opt-in” regimens have already been used with cookies but never with 2.0 applications, as, for instance, social network sites. (shrink)

The use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has expanded both in number and scope over the past 2 decades. Initially carried out to avoid the birth of children with severe genetic disease, PGD is now used for a variety of medical and non-medical purposes. While some human studies have concluded that PGD is safe, animal studies and a recent human study suggest that the embryo biopsy procedure may result in neurological problems for the offspring. Given that the long-term safety of (...) PGD has not been clearly established in humans, this study sought to determine how PGD safety is presented to prospective patients by means of a detailed website analysis. The websites of 262 US fertility centres performing PGD were analysed and comments about safety and risk were catalogued. Results of the analysis demonstrated that 78.2% of centre websites did not mention safety or risk of PGD at all. Of the 21.8% of centres that did contain safety or risk information about PGD, 28.1% included statements highlighting the potential risks, 38.6% presented information touting the procedure as safe and 33.3% included statements highlighting potential risks and the overall safety of the procedure. Thus, 86.6% of PGD-performing centres state that PGD is safe and/or fail to disclose any risks on their websites despite the fact that the impact of the procedure on the long-term health of offspring is unproven. This lack of disclosure suggests that informed consent is inadequate; this study examines numerous factors that are likely to inhibit comprehensive discussions of safety. (shrink)

Millum and Bromwich provide a thorough and thoughtful analysis of what is required for sufficient informed consent, offering distinct conceptualizations of the ethical requirements of disclo...

The acquisition of fully informed consent presents a central ethical problem for the procurement and storage of human tissue in biobanks. The tension lies between the apparent necessity of obtaining informed consent from potential research subjects and the projected future use of the tissue. Specifically, under the doctrine of informed consent medical researchers are required to inform their potential research subjects about the relevant risks and purposes of the proposed research (Declaration of Helsinki, 2008, (...) “Section 24.” Accessed November 1, 2009. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html). However, because human tissue – when stored in biobanks – can be put to multifarious uses, the information that medical researchers are expected to divulge to their subjects is epistemologically inaccessible. Biobank researchers are thus thought to be unable to obtain informed consent from their subjects, making the practice ethically suspicious. We propose that such suspicions of ethical failure should be reconsidered by presenting two possible solutions. Firstly we argue that the epistemological difficulty might be partially solved by adopting the “waiver model” of informed consent. Secondly, we put forward an argument that individual consent can be supplemented by group ethical models. We thus conclude that while informed consent is problematic for biobank researchers, alternative ethical solutions are available. (shrink)

Importance Informed consent is essential to ethical, rigorous research and is important to recruitment and retention in cancer trials.Objective To examine cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants’ perceptions of informed consent processes and variations in perceptions by cancer type.Design and Setting and Participants Cross-sectional survey from mixed-methods study at National Cancer Institute–designated Northeast comprehensive cancer center. Open-ended and forced-choice items addressed: (1) enrollment and informed consent experiences and (2) decision-making processes, including risk-benefit assessment. Eligibility: CCT (...) participant with gastro-intestinal or genitourinary, hematologic-lymphatic malignancies, lung cancer, and breast or gynecological cancer (N = 334).Main Outcome Measures Percentages satisfied with consent process and information provided; and assessing participation’s perceptions of risks/benefits. Multivariable logistic or ordinal regression examined differences by cancer type.Results Most patient-participants felt well informed by the consent process (more than 90% overall and by cancer type) and. most (87.4%) reported that the consent form provided all the information they wanted, although nearly half (44.8%) reported that they read the form somewhat carefully or less. More than half (57.9%) said that talking to research staff (i.e., the consent process) had a greater impact on participation decisions than reading the consent form (2.1%). A third (31.1%) were very sure of joining in research studies before the informed consent process (almost half of lung cancer patients did—47.1%). Most patients personally assessed the risks and benefits before consenting. However, trust in physicians played an important role in the decision to enroll in CCT.Conclusions and Relevance Cancer patients rely less on written features of the informed consent process than on information obtained from the research staff and their own physicians. Research should focus on information and communication strategies that support informed consent from referring physicians, researchers, and others to improve patient risk-benefit assessment and decision-making. (shrink)

In recent years, CRISPR-Cas9 has become one of the simplest and most cost-effective genetic engineering techniques among scientists and researchers aiming to alter genes in organisms. As Zika came to the fore as a global health crisis, many suggested the use of CRISPR-Cas9 gene drives in mosquitoes as a possible means to prevent the transmission of the virus without the need to subject humans to risky experimental treatments. This paper suggests that using gene drives or other forms of genome editing (...) in nonhumans (like mosquitos) for the purposes of disease prevention raises important issues about informed consent. Additionally, it examines the consequences this line of inquiry could have for the use of gene drives as a tool in public health and suggests that the guidance offered by informed consent protocols could help the scientific community deploy gene drives in a way that ensures that ongoing research is consistent with our ethical priorities. (shrink)

Das juristische Konzept der Einwilligung nach Aufklärung ist im Respekt vor dem Selbstbestimmungsrecht begründet. Es entwickelte sich seit Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts, gewann mit der rapiden Ausweitung der klinischen Forschung seit Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts mittels der Deklaration von Helsinki und seit 1972 in den USA als Konzept des informed consent erhebliche Bedeutung in der klinischen Forschung, nachfolgend auch in der klinischen Praxis. Die psychiatrische Forschung stieß bald auf das grundlegende ethische Problem, dass psychische Krankheiten die Einwilligungsfähigkeit und (...) damit die Voraussetzung jeder Forschungsteilnahme beeinträchtigen oder gar zerstören können. Versuche der Lösung dieses ethischen und juristischen Problems in den letzten 30 Jahren – von frühen, durch das Konzept angestoßenen Fragen über die Entwicklung von Verfahren zur Feststellung der Einwilligungsfähigkeit bis zu aktuellen Vorschlägen für Forschungs- bzw. Probandenverfügungen und Forschungsvollmachten – werden im Kontext ihrer gesellschaftlichen Resonanz wie auch der eigenen Erfahrung skizziert. Die Übersicht soll die zunehmende Differenzierung des Konzepts verdeutlichen; sie folgt der Auseinandersetzung mit Problemen, die sich aus der Umsetzung und Wirksamkeit des Konzepts in der Forschungspraxis ergaben, um das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Probanden zu bewahren. Als Schlussfolgerung ergibt sich 1. Das juristische Konzept der Einwilligung nach Aufklärung wurde erst durch die Entwicklung klinischer Kriterien zur Erfassung der Einwilligungsfähigkeit praktikabel; im Forschungskontext ist die Feststellung der Einwilligungsfähigkeit unverzichtbar, da von ihr die Gültigkeit der Einwilligung abhängt. 2. Zu erkennen ist ein langsamer Wandel von der Erfüllung einer juristisch begründeten Pflicht des forschenden Psychiaters, den potentiellen Forschungsteilnehmer nach Aufklärung um seine Einwilligung zu bitten, hin zu einer stärkeren Patientenorientierung; sie anerkennt das Selbstbestimmungsrecht und bemüht sich, im Prozess der Aufklärung die Fähigkeit des Patienten zu optimieren, sich zu einer Forschungsteilnahme selbstbestimmt entscheiden zu können. Dabei wird die Einwilligungsfähigkeit anhand klinischer Kriterien bestimmbar. 3. Es wird bezweifelt, dass die jüngsten legislativen Bemühungen geeignet sind, die Selbstbestimmung bei Forschung ohne potentiellen individuellen Nutzen mit nicht-einwilligungsfähigen Probanden zu sichern; denn es ist fraglich, ob die vorverlegte, dann aber prinzipiell nur unspezifisch mögliche Aufklärung und die auf einen später spezifisch aufgeklärten Vertreter verlagerte Entscheidung praktisch ausreichend realisiert werden können; ethisch enthält diese kontroverse Einschränkung der Selbstbestimmung zumindest das Risiko, das Verhältnis zwischen Individualwohl und Gemeinwohl zu Ungunsten des Individuums zu verschieben. Dadurch wäre dann auch das mit der Respektierung des Selbstbestimmungsrechtes begründete Konzept der Einwilligung nach Aufklärung infrage gestellt. (shrink)

Over the last few decades, multiple studies have examined the understanding of participants in clinical research. They show variable and often poor understanding of key elements of disclosure, such as expected risks and the experimental nature of treatments. Did the participants in these studies give valid consent? According to the standard view of informed consent they did not. The standard view holds that the recipient of consent has a duty to disclose certain information to the profferer (...) of consent because valid consent requires that information to be understood. The contents of the understanding and disclosure requirements are therefore conceptually linked. In this paper, we argue that the standard view is mistaken. The disclosure and understanding requirements have distinct grounds tied to two different ways in which a token of consent can be rendered invalid. Analysis of these grounds allows us to derive the contents of the two requirements. It also implies that it is sometimes permissible to enroll willing participants who have not understood everything that they ought to be told about their clinical trials. (shrink)

ObjectivesTo describe reporting of informed consent in pragmatic trials, justifications for waivers of consent and reporting of alternative approaches to standard written consent. To identify factors associated with (1) not reporting and (2) not obtaining consent.MethodsSurvey of primary trial reports, published 2014–2019, identified using an electronic search filter for pragmatic trials implemented in MEDLINE, and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.ResultsAmong 1988 trials, 132 (6.6%) did not include a statement about participant consent, 1691 (85.0%) reported consent (...) had been obtained, 139 (7.0%) reported a waiver and 26 (1.3%) reported consent for one aspect (eg, data collection) but a waiver for another (eg, intervention). Of the 165 trials reporting a waiver, 76 (46.1%) provided a justification. Few (53, 2.9%) explicitly reported use of alternative approaches to consent. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, lower journal impact factor (p=0.001) and cluster randomisation (p<0.0001) were significantly associated with not reporting on consent, while trial recency, cluster randomisation, higher-income country settings, health services research and explicit labelling as pragmatic were significantly associated with not obtaining consent (all p<0.0001).DiscussionNot obtaining consent seems to be increasing and is associated with the use of cluster randomisation and pragmatic aims, but neither cluster randomisation nor pragmatism are currently accepted justifications for waivers of consent. Rather than considering either standard written informed consent or waivers of consent, researchers and research ethics committees could consider alternative consent approaches that may facilitate the conduct of pragmatic trials while preserving patient autonomy and the public’s trust in research. (shrink)

We describe the informed consent procedures in a research clinic in Santiago, Chile, and a qualitative study that evaluated these procedures. The recruitment process involves information, counseling and screening of volunteers, and three or four visits to the clinic. The study explored the decision‐making process of women participating in contraceptive trials through 36 interviews. Women understood the research as experimentation or progress. The decision to participate was facilitated by the information provided; time to consider it and to discuss (...) it with partners or relatives; and perceived benefits such as quality of care, non‐cost provision of methods and medical care. For some women, participation was an opportunity to express altruism. The main obstacles for participation were perceived side effects or risks. The final risk‐benefit balance was strongly influenced by women’s needs. Women perceived that the consent form benefited the clinic, proving that participants had made a free decision, and benefited the volunteers by warranting their right to free medical care. The most important problem detected was occasional misunderstanding of the information given on the form. We concluded that a full decision‐making process enhances women’s ability to exercise their right to choose, and assures research institutions that trials are conducted without coercion and that the participants are committed to the study. Researchers have the responsibility of conducting this process. (shrink)

To obtain reliable results, some psychological experiments need to involve the deception of human subjects. This contradicts the ethical principle of autonomy and the process of informed consent that is required to ensure the subjects’ autonomy. Some solutions to this dilemma have been proposed, but all of them have drawbacks. As solution I propose a procedure that combines proxy consent and prior consent.

The informed consent process provides protection by ensuring that potential research subjects understand the goals of the research project they are being asked to voluntarily partake in as well as the risks associated with the study. We examined subjects' comprehension and ability to identify issues explicitly raised during the consent process that was conducted as part of their participation in a genetic family study (GFS). We employed cross-sectional design by providing a short, self-administrative questionnaire to 246 participants (...) recruited from families enrolled in the Extended Family Investigation of Nephropathy and Diabetes (EFIND) study conducted at the University of Texas Health Science Center. Participants responded to the questionnaire directly after their enrollment in the EFIND study. The questionnaire consisted of multiple-choice questions and focused on the understanding of the purposes, procedures, and risks associated with their participation in the EFIND study. These questions were formulated to reflect basic information presented to subjects through the consent process. Responses to questions were expressed as percentages, placing equal weight on each response. Participants were Mexican-American, 62.3% female and averaged 35.2 ± 12.7 years old (range: 18-76). Our findings showed that the average comprehension score was 58. About 30% of the participants did not know the name of the study, and 70% did not identify all elements related to the study procedures. The most striking finding was the lack of understanding concerning the social risks associated with participation in EFIND. While 35.1% of participants identified all potential physical risks, only 1.3% could identify all of the social risks. Our findings showed that participants comprehension score was significantly associated with their level of education and income. We conclude that using the informed consent process to communicate research social risks to subjects participating in GFS has some limitations. Future research directed at improving risk communications to subjects of low socioeconomic levels participating in genetic research is justified. (shrink)

Obtaining ‘informed consent’ from every individual participant involved in health research is a mandatory ethical practice. Informed consent is a process whereby potential participants are genuinely informed about their role, risk and rights before they are enrolled in the study. Thus, ethics committees in most countries require ‘informed consent form’ as part of an ethics application which is reviewed before granting research ethics approval. Despite a significant increase in health research activity in low-and (...) middle-income countries in recent years, only limited work has been done to address ethical concerns. Most ethics committees in LMICs lack the authority and/or the capacity to monitor research in the field. This is important since not all research, particularly in LMICs region, complies with ethical principles, sometimes this is inadvertently or due to a lack of awareness of their importance in assuring proper research governance. With several examples from Nepal, this paper reflects on the steps required to obtain informed consents and highlights some of the major challenges and barriers to seeking informed consent from research participants. At the end of this paper, we also offer some recommendations around how can we can promote and implement optimal informed consent taking process. We believe that paper is useful for researchers and members of ethical review boards in highlighting key issues around informed consent. (shrink)

Informed consent is a central topic in contemporary biomedical ethics. Yet attempts to set defensible and feasible standards for consenting have led to persistent difficulties. In Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics Neil Manson and Onora O'Neill set debates about informed consent in medicine and research in a fresh light. They show why informed consent cannot be fully specific or fully explicit, and why more specific consent is not always ethically better. They (...) argue that consent needs distinctive communicative transactions, by which other obligations, prohibitions, and rights can be waived or set aside in controlled and specific ways. Their book offers a coherent, wide-ranging and practical account of the role of consent in biomedicine which will be valuable to readers working in a range of areas in bioethics, medicine and law. (shrink)

A great part of human genetics research is carried out collecting data and building large databases of biological samples that are in a non-anonymous format. These constitute a valuable resource for future research. The construction of such databases and tissue banks facilitates important scientific progress. However, biobanks have been recognized as ethically problematic because they contain thousands of data that could expose individuals and populations to discrimination, stigmatization and psychological stress if misused. Informed consent is regarded as a (...) cornerstone in the protection of personal autonomy in research involving human subjects. Yet in recent years this fundamental concept has been overwhelmed by the genomic revolution. From a general overview of international literature, it seems evident that informed consent issues have come into sharp focus, in particular in relation to the twin issues of time extension (blanket versus specific/repeated consent) and personal extension (group consent). After an introduction on obtaining informed consent in the context of genetic research, this paper addresses the apparent lack of a single, universal model of obtaining informed consent among populations involved in genetic research and it argues for the need to develop an ethical framework tailored to the specific features of each project. In order to support this theory of contextualizing, the case of a private biotechnology company, SharDNA is presented. The present paper explores the management of its biobank, developed from a genetic research project carried out on isolated populations living on the Italian island of Sardinia. In particular, the paper highlights how the company is tackling the problem of informed consent and other ethical requirements for genetic research, such as the respect of individual privacy, the population approach and the existing Italian legal regulatory framework. (shrink)

Informed consent is the single most important concept for understanding decision-making capacity. There is a steady pull in the clinical world to transform capacity into a technical concept that can be tested objectively, usually by calling for a psychiatric consult. This is a classic example of medicalization. In this article I argue that is a mistake, not just unnecessary but wrong, and explain how to normalize capacity assessment.Returning the locus of capacity assessment to the attending, the primary care (...) doctor, and even to ethics consultation in today's environment will require a substantial effort to undo a strong but illusory impression of capacity assessment. Hospital attorneys as well as clinical ethicists with a sophisticated understanding of health law can be in the vanguard of this reorientation. (shrink)

In the "big data age", providing informed consent online has never been more challenging. Countless companies collect and share our personal data through devices, apps, and websites, fuelling a growing data economy and the emergence of surveillance capitalism. Few of us have the time to read the associated privacy policies and terms and conditions, and thus are often unaware of how our personal data are being used. This is a problem, as in the last few years, large tech (...) companies have abused our personal data. As privacy self-management, through the mechanism of providing online consent, has become increasingly difficult, some have argued that surveillance capitalism, and the data economy more broadly, need to be overthrown. This book presents a different perspective. It departs from the concept of revolutionary change to focus on pragmatic, incremental solutions tailored to everyday contexts. It scrutinizes how consent is currently sought and provided online and offers suggestions about how online consent practices can be improved upon. These include: the possibility of subjecting consent-gathering practices to ethics committees for review; the creation of visual-based consent agreements and privacy policies, to help with transparency and engagement; the development of software to protect privacy; and the idea of automated consent functionalities that allow users to bypass the task of reading vast amounts of online consent agreements. The author suggests that these "small-scale" changes to online consent-obtaining procedures, could, if successfully implemented, provide us with a way of self-managing our privacy in a way that avoids a revolutionary dismantling of the data economy. In the process, readers are encouraged to rethink the very purpose of providing inform consent online. Rethinking Informed Consent in the Big Data Age will appeal to researchers in normative ethics, applied ethics, philosophy of law, and the philosophy of AI. It will also be of interest to business scholars, communication researchers, students, and those in industry. (shrink)

This Element examines three related topics in the field of bioethics that arise frequently both in clinical care and in medico-legal settings: capacity, informed consent, and third-party decision-making. All three of these subjects have been shaped significantly by the shift from the paternalistic models of care that dominated medicine in the United States, Canada, and Great Britain prior to the 1960s to the present models that privilege patient autonomy. Each section traces the history of one of these topics (...) and then explores the major ethics issues that arise as these issues are addressed in contemporary clinical practice, paying particular attention to the role that structural factors such as bias and social capital play in their use. In addition, the volume also discusses recent innovations and proposals for reform that may shape these subjects in the future in response both to technological advances and changes in societal priorities. (shrink)

In order to avoid patient abuse, under normal situations before performing a medical intervention on a patient, a physician must obtain informed consent from that patient, where to give genuine informed consent a patient must be competent, understand her condition, her options and their expected risks and benefits, and must expressly consent to one of those options. However, many patients refrain from the option that their physician believes to be best, and many physicians worry that (...) their patients make irrational healthcare decisions, hindering their ability to provide efficient healthcare for their patients. Some philosophers have proposed a solution to this problem: they advocate that physicians nudge their patients to steer them towards their physician's preferred option. A nudge is any influence designed to predictably alter a person's behavior without limiting their options or giving them reasons to act. Proponents of nudging contend that nudges are consistent with obtaining informed consent. Here I argue that nudging is incompatible with genuine informed consent, as it violates a physician's obligation to tell their patients the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth during adequate disclosure. (shrink)

It is generally held that doctors and researchers have an obligation to obtain informed consent. Over time there has been a move in relation to this obligation from a requirement to disclose information to a requirement to ensure that that information is understood. Whilst this change has been resisted, in this article I argue that both sides on this matter are mistaken. When investigating what information is needed for consent to be informed we might be trying (...) to determine what information a person would need in order to consent at all, or we might be trying to determine what information a person needs in order to make an informed choice about whether or not to consent. I argue that the obligation to ensure understanding only applies to information generated by the first type of enquiry; but that much of the information generally thought necessary in order for consent to be informed is only required if our concern is with the second type of enquiry. For this reason it is neither the case that doctors and researchers should ensure all the information they provide is understood, nor is it the case that their only obligation is to disclose it. (shrink)

Medical informed consent stands as an ethical and legal requisite preceding any medical intervention. Hospitalized patients face functional health literacy (FHL) challenges when dealing with informed consent forms (ICFs). The legitimacy of ICFs and informed consent procedures in China remains substantially undisclosed. The study’s aim was to investigate if Chinese patients have adequate FHL to be truly informed before providing medical consent. In this cross-sectional, structured interview-based study, FHL was assessed within the (...) context of the informed consent scenarios in two teaching hospitals (a 1500-bed general tertiary hospital and a 700-bed cancer hospital) affiliated with Shantou University Medical College. Twenty-seven patients admitted across clinical departments, along with their relatives (n = 59), were enrolled in the study after obtaining informed consent. The participants underwent a three-step assessment with two selected ICFs —teach-back skills, perceived understanding (perception), and informed knowledge (cognizance), with each component carrying a maximum score of 10. Data were analyzed with SPSS (version 22.0) for descriptive and inferential statistics, with consideration of significant P values as < 0.05. The median age (IQR and range) of participants was 35.5 (28 – 49 and 13 – 74) years. Most participants had only high school education (24.4%, 21/86) or below high school education (47.7%, 41/86). The median score (IQR) of FHL assessments—teach-back, perception, and cognizance—was 4.0 (2.5, 5.8), 8.0 (6.8, 8.8), and 6.5 (5.5, 8.0) out of 10, respectively. A moderate correlation was observed between the scores of cognizance and teach-back (r = 0.359, P = 0.002) or perception (r = 0.437, P < 0.001). Multivariate linear regression analysis predicted being a patient and having lower education levels as independent risk factors of inadequate FHL (Ps = 0.001). Lack of patient-centeredness in ICFs, time constraints, and poor clinical communication were identified as barriers impeding informed consent. This study demonstrates inadequacy in personal FHL and impaired organizational HL, resulting in compromised informed consent in Chinese teaching hospitals. As a remedy, we propose improving the quality of ICFs and institutionally mandated outcome-focused training on informed consent for all concerned clinicians to enhance medical ethics, ensure quality health care, address patient values, and mitigate potential medical conflicts. (shrink)

BackgroundThe research shows a growing trend in using an electronic platform to supplement or replace traditional paper-based informed consent processes. Instead of the traditionally written informed consent document, electronic informed consent may be used to assess the research subject’s comprehension of the information presented. By doing so, respect for persons as one of the research ethical principles can be upheld. Furthermore, these electronic methods may reduce potential airborne infection exposures, particularly during the pandemic, thereby (...) adhering to the beneficence and nonmaleficence principle. This scoping review aims to identify the ethics related criteria that have been included in electronic informed consent processes and to synthesize and map these criteria to research ethics principles, in order to identify the gaps, if any, in current electronic informed consent processes.MethodsThe search was performed based on internet search and three main databases: PubMed, SCOPUS and EBSCO. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews : Checklist and Explanation guideline was used to report this work.ResultsOf 34 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 242 essential original constructs were collated, and 7 concepts were derived. Digital content showed the highest percentage of collated original constructs followed by accessibility, comprehension engagement, autonomy, confidentiality, language, and parental consent. Twenty-five new items were synthesized for eConsent criteria which may provide guidance for ethical review of research involving eConsent.ConclusionThe current study adds significant value to the corpus of knowledge in research ethics by providing ethical criteria on electronic informed consent based on evidence-based data. The new synthesized items in the criteria can be readily used as an initial guide by the IRB/rec members during a review process on electronic informed consent and useful to the future preparation of a checklist. (shrink)

According to the standard view of informed consent, a prospective subject's consent to participate in a research study is invalid if the individual fails to comprehend the information about the study standardly disclosed to him. I argue that this involves three mistakes. First, the standard view confuses an ethical aspiration with a minimum ethical standard. Second, it assigns the entire responsibility for producing comprehension in study participants to the investigators. Most importantly, the standard view requires the termination (...) of many otherwise perfectly ethical research studies. This last conclusion follows from appreciating a pervasive phenomenon that is known as the "therapeutic misconception." I argue that a prospective subject's consent to participate in research can be perfectly valid even if he or she does not comprehend the information that investigators are required to disclose. Furthermore, I explain that this alternative view does not in the least compromise the vital goal of ensuring the protection of subjects in research. (shrink)

Setting reasonable and fair limits of emergency research acceptability in ethical norms and legal regulations must still adhere to the premise of well-being of the research subject over the interests of science and society. Informed consent of emergency patients to be enrolled in clinical trials is a particularly difficult issue due to impaired competencies of patients’ to give consent, short diagnostic and therapeutic windows, as well as the requirement to provide detailed information to participants. Whereas the Declaration (...) of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice guideline, Additional Protocol to the European Bioethical Convention concerning Biomedical Research, as well as appropriate regulations adopted by the Food and Drugs Administration (USA) allow waivers from participants’ consent or deferred consent for emergency research, the regulations of most European Community countries following the Clinical Trial Directive (2001/20/EC) do not give space for a deferred consent or a waiver from consent for adult patients (unless surrogate consent is made use of). This is even more confusing in case of Poland, where conflicting regulations on a waiver from a participant’s consent in emergency research exist and the regulations on surrogate consent of temporarily incompetent adults are too restrictive and authorise only the guardianship courts to consent, which is not or hardly feasible in practice. European Community regulations need to be amended to allow for implementation of the deferred consent or waivers from consent for emergency research in order to enable ethical research of emergency conditions that should become a large part of important public health priorities. (shrink)

Informed consent in medical practice is essential and a global standard that should be sought at all the times doctors interact with patients. Its intensity would vary depending on the invasiveness and risks associated with the anticipated treatment. To our knowledge there has not been any systematic review of consent practices to document best practices and identify areas that need improvement in our setting. The objective of the study was to evaluate the informed consent practices (...) of surgeons at University teaching Hospitals in a low resource setting. (shrink)

This article introduces the notion of ‘routinisation’ into discussions of informed consent. It is argued that the routinisation of informed consent poses a threat to the protection of the personal autonomy of a patient through the negotiation of informed consent. On the basis of a large survey, we provide evidence of the routinisation of informed consent in various types of interaction on the internet; among these, the routinisation of consent to the (...) exchange of health related information. We also provide evidence that the extent of the routinisation of informed consent is dependent on the character of the information exchanged, and we uncover a range of causes of routinisation. Finally, the article discusses possible ways of countering the problem of routinisation of informed consent. (shrink)

Some philosophers have argued that during the process of obtaining informed consent, physicians should try to nudge their patients towards consenting to the option the physician believes best, where a nudge is any influence that is expected to predictably alter a person’s behaviour without restricting her options. Some proponents of nudging even argue that it is a necessary and unavoidable part of securing informed consent. Here I argue that nudging is incompatible with obtaining informed (...) class='Hi'>consent. I assume informed consent requires that a physician tells her patient the truth about her options and argue that nudging is incompatible with truth-telling. Instead, nudging satisfies Harry Frankfurt’s account of bullshit. (shrink)

Neil Manson and Onora O’Neill have recently defended an original theory of informed consent in their book Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics (2007). The development of their ‘waiver’ model is premised on the failings of the theory of informed consent as disclosure, which is rejected on two counts: firstly, the disclosure model’s implicit reliance upon a ‘conduit-container’ model of communication means that the regulatory requirements of informed consent can rarely be achieved; secondly, (...) the model’s purported ethical justification via a principle of respect for patient autonomy is presented as being vacuous. Despite having laudable motivations for rethinking informed consent, I argue that their theory of informed consent as waiver can be criticised on similar grounds. In order to support this thesis I object that Manson and O’Neill’s developed theory of agential communication is too intricate to easily meet the demands of informed consent as waiver. Secondly, I show that the model appears to be implicitly reliant upon a principle of respect for patient autonomy. Hence, despite improving upon the doctrine of informed consent, the waiver model needs further elucidation in order to avoid the problems mounted against the disclosure model. (shrink)

ABSTRACT When misattributed paternity is discovered in the course of genetic testing, a genetic counselor is presented with a dilemma concerning whether to reveal this information to the clients. She is committed to treating the clients equally and enabling informed decision making, but disclosing the information may carry consequences for the woman that the counselor cannot judge in advance. A frequent suggestion aimed at avoiding this problem is to include the risk of discovering nonpaternity in the informed (...) class='Hi'>consent process for counseling. In this paper I argue that such a move does not resolve the problem, because the conflict hinges on the interpretation of equality on which the counselor operates. Given the principles of genetic counseling, neither construal of equality yields a satisfactory solution to the conflict. In fact, I conclude that including nonpaternity in informed consent is not endorsed by either view, and we are still left with the question of what to do should nonpaternity be discovered. I suggest a compromise position concerning disclosure, involving revealing relevant genetic information but withholding nonpaternity when possible. (shrink)

Recent cases involving biosamples taken from indigenous tribes and newborn babies reveal the emptiness of informed consent. This venerable doctrine often functions as a charade, a collective fiction which thinly masks the uncomfortable fact that the subjects of human research are not actually afforded full information regarding the types of research that may be contemplated, nor do they provide meaningful consent. But if informed consent fails to provide adequate protection to the donors of biological materials, (...) why not turn to principles of property law? Property is power, yet current law permits everyone except for those who donate biological materials to possess property rights. The reluctance to invoke property probably stems from fears of resurrecting slavery and the commodification of human beings. But ironically, avoidance of property transforms the subjects of human research into objects that can be owned only by others, resulting in new forms of oppression and exploitation. Human research subjects are autonomous individuals who should not only possess the power to contribute their biological materials, but also the right to help control the course of research, and to share in the resulting benefits or profits. Conferring body property might enable research subjects to regain power and a measure of self-sovereignty. (shrink)

The article covers electronic informed consent 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.

Background: Informed consent is essential for the ethical conduct of clinical research and is a culturally sensitive issue. But, a measurable Chinese version of the scale to evaluate the informed consent process has not yet been explored in the existing literature. Research objectives: This study aimed to develop and psychometrically test the Chinese version of the Informed Consent Process Scale. Research design: Back-translation was conducted to develop the Chinese version of the questionnaire. A cross-sectional (...) survey was administered, after which an exploratory factor analysis was conducted. Participants: We recruited a total of 375 participants who had experience in signing an informed consent form within the previous 3 years in Taiwan. Ethical considerations: This study was approved by two Institutional Review Boards and the autonomy of the participants was respected. Findings: The Chinese version of the Informed Consent Process Scale is composed of three factors with 23 items showing evidence of acceptable reliability and validity. Three major factors were extracted and labeled: Factor 1 – ‘Understanding of the research’, Factor 2 – ‘Trust and confidence’ and Factor 3 – ‘Doubt and uncertainty’. The three factors accounted for is 52.954 of the total variance with Cronbach’s α of.917. Discussion and conclusion: The finding corroborates previous studies showing that participants had too little understanding on the informed consent forms they signed and implied the need to clarify the critical points in clinical research. The psychometric results indicated good internal consistency and validity for this newly constructed instrument, and it was found worthy of conducting further testing and application. (shrink)

Research Ethics, Volume 18, Issue 4, Page 265-280, October 2022. Concerns around comprehension and recall of consent information by research participants have typically been associated with low health and research literacy levels. In genomics research, this concern is heightened as the scientific and ethical complexities of genetics research, such as biobanking, genetic susceptibility, data sharing, and incidental findings may be more difficult for potential research participants to understand. However, challenges to research participants’ comprehension of consent information may be (...) compounded by factors beyond health and research literacy levels. To identify factors that may impact research participants’ understanding and recall of consent information, we designed a qualitative study to explore whether participants enrolled in a tuberculosis genetics study in Cameroon understood the objectives of the study, the risks and benefits and certain key aspects of the study such as biobanking and data sharing. The results showed that research participants had limited understanding and/or recall of the TBGEN-Africa study goals and methods. Some participants were of the opinion that TBGEN-Africa was not a genetics study because tuberculosis is not an inheritable condition. Factors that may have hindered understanding and/or recall of study information are diagnostic misconception, and information overload and situational vulnerability. There is a need for improved practices to support research participants’ understanding of consent information in genetics studies including designing the consent process in ways that minimize psychological distress and diagnostic/therapeutic misconception. (shrink)

Informed consent is a central concept of contemporary medical ethics. Clinicians and medical researchers are under an obligation to inform patients and research subjects about the nature, purposes, risks, and side effects of proposed courses of action. A vast body of literature has been produced, over the past 30 years or so, about the nature, justification, scope, and limits of informed consent. Here we will focus on what informed consent is, how it came to (...) have a central place in medical ethics, and then briefly introduce some of the main problems and issues with informed consent. (shrink)

Informed consent is recognized as a primary ethical requirement to conduct research involving humans. In the investigations with the use of human biological material, informed consent (IC) assumes a differentiated condition on account of the many future possibilities. This work presents suitable alternatives for IC regarding the storage and use of human biological material in research, according to new Brazilian regulations. Both norms – Resolution 441/11 of the National Health Council, approved on 12 May 2011, and (...) Ordinance 2.201 (NATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR BIOREPOSITORIES AND BIOBANKS OF HUMAN BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL FOR RESEARCH PURPOSE) of the Brazil Ministry of Health, approved on 14 September 2011 – state that the consent of subjects for the collection, storage and use of samples stored in Biobanks is necessarily established by means of a Free and Informed Consent Form (ICF). In order to obtain individual and formal statements, this form should contain the following two mutually exclusive options: an explanation about the use of the stored material in each research study, and the need for new consent or the waiver thereof when the material is used for a new study. On the other hand, ICF suitable for Biorepositories must be exclusive and related to specific research. Although Brazilian and international regulations identify the main aspects to be included in the IC, efforts are still necessary to improve the consent process, so that the document will become a bond of trust between subject and researcher. (shrink)

Many high-risk medical devices earn US marketing approval based on limited premarket clinical evaluation that leaves important questions unanswered. Rigorous postmarket surveillance includes registries that actively collect and maintain information defined by individual patient exposures to particular devices. Several prominent registries for cardiovascular devices require enrolment as a condition of reimbursement for the implant procedure, without informed consent. In this article, we focus on whether these registries, separate from their legal requirements, have an ethical obligation to obtain (...) class='Hi'>informed consent from enrolees, what is lost in not doing so, and the ways in which seeking and obtaining consent might strengthen postmarket surveillance in the USA. (shrink)

It has been suggested that, in addition to individual level decision-making, informed consent procedures could be used in collective decision-making too. One of the main criticisms directed at this suggestion concerns decision-making power. It is maintained that consent is a veto power concept and that, as such, it is not appropriate for collective decision-making. This paper examines this objection to collective informed consent. It argues that veto power informed consent can have some uses (...) in the collective level and that when it is not appropriate the decision power a concerned party ought to have in connection with an arrangement should be made relative to the interest she has at stake in it. It concludes that the objection examined does not undermine collective informed consent. (shrink)

Book reviewed in this article: Informed Consent in Medical Therapy and Research. By Bernard Barber.

This paper explains why informed consent for randomized comparative effectiveness research must include risks of standard care. Disclosures of such risks are both legally and ethically required and, for reasons discussed in the paper, should remain so.

In controlled human infection studies (CHIs), participants are deliberately exposed to infectious agents in order to better understand the mechanism of infection or disease and test therapies or vaccines. While most CHIs have been conducted in high‐income countries, CHIs have recently been expanding into low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). One potential ethical concern about this expansion is the challenge of obtaining the voluntary informed consent of participants, especially those who may not be literate or have limited education. In (...) some CHIs in LMICs, researchers have attempted to address this potential concern by limiting access to literate or educated populations. In this paper, we argue that this practice is unjustified, as it does not increase the chances of obtaining valid informed consent and therefore unfairly excludes illiterate populations and populations with lower education. Instead, we recommend that investigators improve the informed consent process by drawing on existing data on obtaining informed consent in these populations and interventions aimed at improving their understanding. Based on a literature review, we provide concrete suggestions for how to follow this recommendation and ensure that populations with lower literacy or education are given a fair opportunity to protect their rights and interests in the informed consent process. (shrink)