Who is willing to participate in low-risk pragmatic clinical trials without consent?
Open Access
- 12 September 2017
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
- Vol. 73 (12), 1557-1563
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-017-2332-1
Abstract
Purpose General notification offers a possible alternative to written informed consent for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs). It involves patients being informed through brochures, posters, and letters that research is being conducted simultaneously to providing clinical care and that patients will be enrolled in pRCTs without study-specific consent. A previous survey found that a substantial minority of respondents endorsed general notification. We aimed to know who is willing to enroll in this type of trials using general notification rather than written consent. Methods The previous study was a cross-sectional, probability-based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design. Two scenarios were assessed: two low-risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing two drugs with similar benefit/risk ratio and the other taking the same drug in the morning or at night. Each scenario had two routes: written consent vs verbal consent and written consent vs general notification. In this study, we were interested in the latter route in both scenarios. Respondents’ preferences were measured based on their recommendation to the research ethics committee and the respondent’s personal preference. We aimed to investigate the characteristics of those supporting general notification in either outcome or the variables explaining consistency and inconsistency between their personal preference and their recommendation. Based on the results of the original survey, we aimed to have at least 200 inconsistent respondents; to this end, the sample size was increased accordingly in a second wave of the survey. Results One thousand six hundre and ten respondents were included; 1003 from the original survey and 607 new ones belonging to the second wave. Thirty-nine percent of respondents chose general notification as personal preference and/or recommendation. Respondents with lower education levels were more prone to accept general notification than those holding a university degree [OR (95% CI)], primary school [2.959 (2.069–4.232)], secondary school [2.899 (2.09–4.021)], or high school [1.620 (1.184–2.217)]. Also unemployed [1.372 (1.064–1.770)] and retired [1.445 (1.049–1.990)], but not students, showed preference for general notification in comparison with those employed. Individuals more than 24 years old and having received high school or university (or postgraduate) education were statistically significantly more consistent in their decisions. Conclusions Thirty-nine percent of respondents is open to not to be asked for their informed consent in low-risk pRCTs; of these, those being less educated and not having current job or being retired are significantly more open to general notification. The use of this alternative method to written consent for simultaneous conduct of pRCTs and care should be considered and educational programs settled up to, in the case of public acceptance, ensure its ethical appropriateness.Keywords
Funding Information
- Victor Grifols i Lucas Foundation, Barcelona, Sapin
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Public preferences on written informed consent for low‐risk pragmatic clinical trials in SpainBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2017
- A comparison of institutional review board professionals’ and patients’ views on consent for research on medical practicesClinical Trials, 2016
- Pragmatic Randomized Trials Without Standard Informed Consent?Annals of Internal Medicine, 2015
- Participants’ understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysisBulletin of the World Health Organization, 2015
- Prevalence, Characteristics, and Publication of Discontinued Randomized TrialsJAMA, 2014
- Informed Consent, Comparative Effectiveness, and Learning Health CareThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2014
- Informed Consent for Pragmatic Trials — The Integrated Consent ModelThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2014
- How not to reduce uncertainties in careBMJ, 2013
- A randomized database study in general practice yielded quality data but patient recruitment in routine consultation was not practicalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2006
- What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agenciesTrials, 2006