Background: In a trial of early in-bed cycling in critically ill patients, a video demonstrating use of the cycle in addition to verbal description may improve satisfaction with the informed consent process for all persons involved. Methods: A convenience sample of in-person consent encounters for enrolment in TryCYCLE (NCT01885442), a 33-patient pilot study of in-bed cycling with mechanically ventilated patients in an intensive care unit, were recruited. In this study within a trial, using concealed allocation, we randomized consent encounters to a Video or Standard consent approach. Those in the Video group viewed a 2-minute video of a model using in-bed cycling plus the routine verbal description of the study. The Standard group received the routine verbal description only. Patients and/or substitute decision makers (SDMs) were blinded to the study purpose. After each encounter, patients and/or SDMs and the research coordinator submitted written satisfaction and comfort ratings using 7-point scales (higher scores better). We documented consent outcomes and analyzed between group differences with independent group t-tests. Results: We randomized 14 encounters (6 Video, 8 Standard). Ten completed questionnaires (5 in each group) demonstrated no difference in patient and/or SDM satisfaction or comfort between Video or Standard (mean [standard deviation] Satisfaction: 6.8[0.45] vs. 7.0[0] vs. p=0.37; Comfort: 7.0[0] vs. 7.0[0], p>0.99). The research coordinator evaluated all randomized encounters, with no differences between Video or Standard (Satisfaction: 7.0[0] vs. 6.9[0.35], p=0.41; Comfort: 6.7[0.52] vs. 6.9[0.35], p=0.39). All 14 consent encounters enrolled in TryCYCLE. Conclusions: Patient and/or SDM satisfaction and comfort with consent was very high for both the Video and Standard approaches. Further research, including use of videos to portray different study interventions, is needed, including analysis of patient and/or SDM satisfaction, comfort, comprehension, and consent rates. Registration for host trial: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01885442 , registered on June 25, 2013
[1]
C. Gamble,et al.
Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership – the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study
,
2018,
Trials.
[2]
Paula R. Williamson,et al.
Trial Forge Guidance 1: what is a Study Within A Trial (SWAT)?
,
2018,
Trials.
[3]
D. Cook,et al.
TryCYCLE: A Prospective Study of the Safety and Feasibility of Early In-Bed Cycling in Mechanically Ventilated Patients
,
2016,
PloS one.
[4]
G. Guyatt,et al.
Early mobilization of critically ill adults: a survey of knowledge, perceptions and practices of Canadian physicians and physiotherapists.
,
2016,
CMAJ open.
[5]
Anneliese Synnot,et al.
Audio-visual presentation of information for informed consent for participation in clinical trials.
,
2014,
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.
[6]
D. Cook,et al.
Enhancing the informed consent process for critical care research: strategies from a thromboprophylaxis trial.
,
2013,
Intensive & critical care nursing.
[7]
Thierry Troosters,et al.
Early exercise in critically ill patients enhances short-term functional recovery*
,
2009,
Critical care medicine.