Using decision aids may improve informed consent for research.

This commentary argues that the existing approach towards obtaining informed consent for clinical research may be improved by using decision aids. Problems with the current approach include i) an emphasis on documentation to the detriment of good quality decision-making; ii) ad hoc rather than theory-based research studying how to improve informed consent; and iii) a lack of clarity around what is meant by 'comprehension' and how to measure it. Decision aids, which clearly improve patient treatment decisions but are new to decisions surrounding study participation, have strengths in precisely the areas where the informed consent literature is weak. Decision aids facilitate a process of decision-making, combining clear documentation, exercises to facilitate decision-making, and consultation. They are increasingly informed by theory and clear, empirically-derived standards. Furthermore, decision aid research has clearly defined and operationalized three indicators of good quality decision-making in situations where there is no objectively correct answer: demonstrable knowledge of key aspects of the decision, accurate perceptions of the probabilities of various outcomes, and a match between preferred outcomes and the choice made. We identify outstanding issues and propose a research approach that will determine whether the use of decision aids can improve the informed consent process.

[1]  D. Resnik Do informed consent documents matter? , 2009, Contemporary Clinical Trials.

[2]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  A. Fleissig,et al.  Results of an intervention study to improve communication about randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy. , 2001, European journal of cancer.

[4]  V. Entwistle,et al.  Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review , 1999, BMJ.

[5]  Trudy van der Weijden,et al.  Assessing the Quality of Decision Support Technologies Using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi) , 2009, PloS one.

[6]  James Flory,et al.  Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. , 2004, JAMA.

[7]  D. Drotar,et al.  A Physician-Directed Intervention: Teaching and Measuring Better Informed Consent , 2009, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[8]  G. Elwyn,et al.  Informed consent documentation necessary but not sufficient. , 2009, Contemporary clinical trials.

[9]  K. Shojania,et al.  Can patient decision aids help people make good decisions about participating in clinical trials? A study protocol , 2008, Implementation science : IS.

[10]  V. Entwistle Supporting participation in clinical research: decision aids for trial recruitment? , 2008, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[11]  C. Grady,et al.  Descriptions of benefits and risks in consent forms for phase 1 oncology trials. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  Aileen Clarke,et al.  Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  J. Forbes,et al.  Improving informed consent: pilot of a decision aid for women invited to participate in a breast cancer prevention trial (IBIS‐II DCIS) , 2008, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[14]  G. Elwyn,et al.  Where is the theory? Evaluating the theoretical frameworks described in decision support technologies. , 2008, Patient education and counseling.

[15]  Albert G Mulley,et al.  Standard consultations are not enough to ensure decision quality regarding preference-sensitive options. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[16]  Dawn Stacey,et al.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. , 2009, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.