Implementation of Electronic Informed Consent in Biomedical Research and Stakeholders’ Perspectives: Systematic Review

Background Informed consent is one of the key elements in biomedical research. The introduction of electronic informed consent can be a way to overcome many challenges related to paper-based informed consent; however, its novel opportunities remain largely unfulfilled due to several barriers. Objective We aimed to provide an overview of the ethical, legal, regulatory, and user interface perspectives of multiple stakeholder groups in order to assist responsible implementation of electronic informed consent in biomedical research. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search using Web of Science (Core collection), PubMed, EMBASE, ACM Digital Library, and PsycARTICLES. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were used for reporting this work. We included empirical full-text studies focusing on the concept of electronic informed consent in biomedical research covering the ethical, legal, regulatory, and user interface domains. Studies written in English and published from January 2010 onward were selected. We explored perspectives of different stakeholder groups, in particular researchers, research participants, health authorities, and ethics committees. We critically appraised literature included in the systematic review using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort and cross-sectional studies, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for qualitative studies, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for mixed methods studies, and Jadad tool for randomized controlled trials. Results A total of 40 studies met our inclusion criteria. Overall, the studies were heterogeneous in the type of study design, population, intervention, research context, and the tools used. Most of the studies’ populations were research participants (ie, patients and healthy volunteers). The majority of studies addressed barriers to achieving adequate understanding when using electronic informed consent. Concerns shared by multiple stakeholder groups were related to the security and legal validity of an electronic informed consent platform and usability for specific groups of research participants. Conclusions Electronic informed consent has the potential to improve the informed consent process in biomedical research compared to the current paper-based consent. The ethical, legal, regulatory, and user interface perspectives outlined in this review might serve to enhance the future implementation of electronic informed consent. Trial Registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020158979; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=158979

[1]  Michelle Nichols,et al.  An Exploration of Useful Telemedicine-Based Resources for Clinical Research. , 2020, Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association.

[2]  Raul G Nogueira,et al.  Legal authorized representative experience with smartphone-based electronic informed consent in an acute stroke trial , 2019, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

[3]  Hans-Ulrich Prokosch,et al.  Development and Usability Analysis of a Multimedia eConsent Solution , 2019, GMDS.

[4]  Rose-Mharie Åhlfeldt,et al.  E-Consent for Data Privacy: Consent Management for Mobile Health Technologies in Public Health Surveys and Disease Surveillance , 2019, MedInfo.

[5]  S. Masand,et al.  Awareness and Collaboration Across Stakeholder Groups Important for eConsent Achieving Value-Driven Adoption , 2019, Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science.

[6]  Evan K. Perrault,et al.  Concise Consent Forms Appreciated—Still Not Comprehended: Applying Revised Common Rule Guidelines in Online Studies , 2019, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[7]  Cindy Chen,et al.  Evaluation of a REDCap-based Workflow for Supporting Federal Guidance for Electronic Informed Consent. , 2019, AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science.

[8]  Elizabeth H. Golembiewski,et al.  Does an interactive trust-enhanced electronic consent improve patient experiences when asked to share their health records for research? A randomized trial , 2019, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[9]  Samar K Dankar,et al.  Informed Consent in Biomedical Research , 2019, Computational and structural biotechnology journal.

[10]  Pierre Pluye,et al.  Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study. , 2019, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  Katarzyna Wyka,et al.  Establishing the Feasibility of a Tablet-Based Consent Process with Older Adults: A Mixed-Methods Study , 2019, The Gerontologist.

[12]  H. Ullum,et al.  The preferences of potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research regarding consent procedures and information delivery , 2019, European Psychiatry.

[13]  E. Krakow,et al.  The Challenges of Informed Consent in High-Stakes, Randomized Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review , 2019, MDM policy & practice.

[14]  Alexa M Ortiz,et al.  A Digital Decision Support Tool to Enhance Decisional Capacity for Clinical Trial Consent: Design and Development , 2018, JMIR research protocols.

[15]  Eric L Eisenstein,et al.  Perspectives on Electronic Informed Consent From Patients Underrepresented in Research in the United States: A Focus Group Study , 2018, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[16]  Patricia Kingori,et al.  The Acceptability of Online Consent in a Self-Test Serosurvey of Responders to the 2014–2016 West African Ebola Outbreak , 2017, Public health ethics.

[17]  Christopher A. Harle,et al.  Patient preferences toward an interactive e-consent application for research using electronic health records , 2017, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[18]  S. R. Ramos,et al.  User-Centered Design, Experience, and Usability of an Electronic Consent User Interface to Facilitate Informed Decision-Making in an HIV Clinic , 2017, Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN.

[19]  Andrea Bezjak,et al.  Leveraging Mobile Technology to Improve Efficiency of the Consent-to-Treatment Process. , 2017, JCO clinical cancer informatics.

[20]  Susan B. Newman,et al.  Improving informed consent: Stakeholder views , 2017, AJOB empirical bioethics.

[21]  A. Rodríguez-Molinero,et al.  Human-Centered Design Study: Enhancing the Usability of a Mobile Phone App in an Integrated Falls Risk Detection System for Use by Older Adult Users , 2017, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[22]  K. Getz,et al.  Trial watch: Trends in clinical trial design complexity , 2017, Nature reviews. Drug discovery.

[23]  J. Gallo,et al.  Perspectives of IRB chairs on the informed consent process , 2017, AJOB empirical bioethics.

[24]  M. Doerr,et al.  Formative Evaluation of Participant Experience With Mobile eConsent in the App-Mediated Parkinson mPower Study: A Mixed Methods Study , 2017, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[25]  Kathryn M Porter,et al.  A randomized study of multimedia informational aids for research on medical practices: Implications for informed consent , 2017, Clinical trials.

[26]  S. Beck,et al.  Dynamic Consent: a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research , 2017, BMC Medical Ethics.

[27]  M. Pérez-Cárceles,et al.  Enhancing the informed consent process in psychiatric outpatients with a brief computer-based method , 2016, Psychiatry Research.

[28]  Xiaoqian Jiang,et al.  iCONCUR: informed consent for clinical data and bio-sample use for research , 2016, AMIA.

[29]  K. Harland,et al.  Telemedicine Provides Noninferior Research Informed Consent for Remote Study Enrollment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. , 2016, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[30]  O. Nov,et al.  Social Annotation Valence: The Impact on Online Informed Consent Beliefs and Behavior , 2016, Journal of medical Internet research.

[31]  H. Son,et al.  Prospective Randomized Controlled Study on the Efficacy of Multimedia Informed Consent for Patients Scheduled to Undergo Green-Light High-Performance System Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate , 2016, The world journal of men's health.

[32]  Edgar A. Whitley,et al.  Patient Perspectives on Sharing Anonymized Personal Health Data Using a Digital System for Dynamic Consent and Research Feedback: A Qualitative Study , 2016, Journal of medical Internet research.

[33]  Gail A. Van Norman,et al.  Drugs, Devices, and the FDA: Part 1 , 2016, JACC. Basic to translational science.

[34]  Oded Nov,et al.  The Effect of Exposure to Social Annotation on Online Informed Consent Beliefs and Behavior , 2016, CSCW.

[35]  K. Saag,et al.  A pragmatic randomized trial comparing tablet computer informed consent to traditional paper-based methods for an osteoporosis study , 2016, Contemporary clinical trials communications.

[36]  Michael Morrison,et al.  Towards ‘Engagement 2.0’: Insights from a study of dynamic consent with biobank participants , 2015, Digital health.

[37]  C. Simon,et al.  Interactive multimedia consent for biobanking: A randomized trial , 2015, Genetics in Medicine.

[38]  Helen A. Schartz,et al.  Traditional and electronic informed consent for biobanking: a survey of U.S. biobanks. , 2014, Biopreservation and biobanking.

[39]  J. Botkin,et al.  A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Electronic Informed Consent Process , 2014, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics.

[40]  Anneliese Synnot,et al.  Audio-visual presentation of information for informed consent for participation in clinical trials. , 2014, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[41]  Michael Morrison,et al.  Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks , 2014, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[42]  Joseph M. Plasek,et al.  A rural community's involvement in the design and usability testing of a computer‐based informed consent process for the personalized medicine research project , 2014, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[43]  N. Gale,et al.  Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[44]  Anand K. Gramopadhye,et al.  An investigation of the efficacy of electronic consenting interfaces of research permissions management system in a hospital setting , 2013, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[45]  Adam A. Nishimura,et al.  Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials , 2013, BMC medical ethics.

[46]  S. Cummings,et al.  Interactive Informed Consent: Randomized Comparison with Paper Consents , 2013, PloS one.

[47]  Á. Gil,et al.  Are healthcare workers’ intentions to vaccinate related to their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes? a systematic review , 2013, BMC Public Health.

[48]  D. Jeste,et al.  Preliminary study of a web-based tool for enhancing the informed consent process in schizophrenia research , 2012, Schizophrenia Research.

[49]  Alan R. Tait,et al.  Evaluation of a prototype interactive consent program for pediatric clinical trials: a pilot study , 2012, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[50]  N. Gogtay,et al.  A study of warning letters issued to clinical investigators and institutional review boards by the United States Food and Drug Administration. , 2011, Indian journal of medical ethics.

[51]  J. Gallacher,et al.  Achieving online consent to participation in large-scale gene-environment studies: a tangible destination , 2011, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[52]  Matthew E Falagas,et al.  Informed consent: how much and what do patients understand? , 2009, American journal of surgery.

[53]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[54]  S. Pauker,et al.  Discontinuing Medications: A Novel Approach for Revising the Prescribing Stage of the Medication‐Use Process , 2008, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[55]  Alicia Fernandez,et al.  The Impact of Language Barriers on Documentation of Informed Consent at a Hospital with On-Site Interpreter Services , 2007, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[56]  Wolzt,et al.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki , 2000, International Journal of Pharmaceutical Medicine.

[57]  The Nuremberg Code (1947) , 1996 .

[58]  A R Jadad,et al.  Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? , 1996, Controlled clinical trials.

[59]  U. Filibeck,et al.  GCP and Quality in “Regulation (EU) 536/2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use and repealing Directive 2001/20/EU” , 2018 .

[60]  Fuad Abujarad,et al.  Building an Informed Consent Tool Starting with the Patient: The Patient-Centered Virtual Multimedia Interactive Informed Consent (VIC) , 2017, AMIA.

[61]  Yvonne O'Connor,et al.  Exploring User Behaviours when Providing Electronic Consent on Health Social Networks: A ‘Just Tick Agree’ Approach , 2017 .

[62]  P. Tugwell,et al.  The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses , 2014 .

[63]  M. Fathalla,et al.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. , 2013, JAMA.

[64]  Rebecca Ryan,et al.  Audio-visual presentation of information for informed consent for participation in clinical trials. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[65]  V. Braun,et al.  Please Scroll down for Article Qualitative Research in Psychology Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology , 2022 .