Improved pregnant women’s understanding of research information by an enhanced informed consent form: a randomised controlled study nested in neonatal research

Objective This study aimed to test the applicability and effectiveness of the enhanced informed consent form (ICF) methodology, proposed by the Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review (SIDCER), in neonatal research requiring maternal consent. Design A single-centre open-label randomised controlled study. Setting Antenatal care clinics at Phramongkutklao Hospital, Thailand. Patients 234 pregnant women who were at risk of preterm labour were enrolled; 232 individuals completed the study. Interventions The participants were randomly assigned to read either the SIDCER ICF or the conventional ICF. Main outcome measures The participants’ understanding of essential trial-related information was assessed using 25 closed-ended questions. The primary endpoint was the proportion of the participants who obtained the satisfactory level of understanding at 80% (score of ≥20/25). Results 72.5% (87/120) of the participants in the SIDCER ICF group and 59.8% (67/112) of the conventional ICF group achieved the primary endpoint (relative risk (RR)=1.212, 95% CI 1.005 to 1.462, p=0.041). The superiority of the SIDCER ICF over the conventional ICF was significant, particularly among the participants whose education was at the high school level or below (63.5% vs 44.1%, RR=1.441, 95% CI 1.022 to 2.030, p=0.031). Conclusions The SIDCER ICF methodology is applicable to neonatal research requiring maternal consent. The SIDCER ICF significantly improved the understanding of pregnant women, particularly among those with lower levels of education. The present study confirms the value of the SIDCER ICF methodology in research involving individuals with a limited academic background.

[1]  T. Tharavanij,et al.  Improved participants’ understanding of research information in real settings using the SIDCER informed consent form: a randomized-controlled informed consent study nested with eight clinical trials , 2017, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

[2]  Xinchun Liu,et al.  Readability and Content Assessment of Informed Consent Forms for Phase II-IV Clinical Trials in China , 2016, PloS one.

[3]  Vichai Chokevivat,et al.  SIDCER informed consent form: principles and a developmental guideline. , 2016, Indian journal of medical ethics.

[4]  S. Koyfman,et al.  Informed consent conversations and documents: A quantitative comparison , 2016, Cancer.

[5]  E. Larson,et al.  Reading Level and Comprehension of Research Consent Forms , 2016, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[6]  Junjira Laothavorn,et al.  Improved participants’ understanding in a healthy volunteer study using the SIDCER informed consent form: a randomized-controlled study , 2015, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

[7]  J. Cracowski,et al.  Improved informed consent documents for biomedical research do not increase patients' understanding but reduce enrolment: a study in real settings. , 2015, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[8]  N. Koonrungsesomboon,et al.  Understanding of Essential Elements Required in Informed Consent Form among Researchers and Institutional Review Board Members , 2015, Tropical medicine and health.

[9]  Nguyen Phuoc Long,et al.  Participants’ understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis , 2015, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[10]  J. McKenzie,et al.  A myriad of methods: calculated sample size for two proportions was dependent on the choice of sample size formula and software. , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  S. Kundapura,et al.  The big Cs of the informed consent form: compliance and comprehension. , 2013, Indian journal of medical ethics.

[12]  Robert M. Nelson,et al.  Parental Permission and Child Assent in Research on Children , 2013, The Yale journal of biology and medicine.

[13]  Vijay N. Nair,et al.  Informing the uninformed: optimizing the consent message using a fractional factorial design. , 2013 .

[14]  D. Orbach,et al.  Parental comprehension of the benefits/risks of first-line randomised clinical trials in children with solid tumours: a two-stage cross-sectional interview study , 2013, BMJ Open.

[15]  C. Grady,et al.  Randomization to standard and concise informed consent forms: development of evidence-based consent practices. , 2012, Contemporary clinical trials.

[16]  N. Finer,et al.  Evaluation of the Content and Process of Informed Consent Discussions for Neonatal Research , 2012, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[17]  C. Grady,et al.  The quality of informed consent: mapping the landscape. A review of empirical data from developing and developed countries , 2012, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[18]  G. Henderson,et al.  Improving Participant Understanding of Informed Consent in an HIV-Prevention Clinical Trial: A Comparison of Methods , 2012, AIDS and Behavior.

[19]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  Presenting Research Risks and Benefits to Parents: Does Format Matter? , 2010, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[20]  B. Zikmund‐Fisher,et al.  The Effect of Format on Parents' Understanding of the Risks and Benefits of Clinical Research: A Comparison Between Text, Tables, and Graphics , 2010, Journal of health communication.

[21]  F. Ward Parents' Views of Involvement in Concurrent Research with Their Neonates , 2010, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[22]  Patrick Maison,et al.  Informed consent document improvement does not increase patients' comprehension in biomedical research. , 2010, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[23]  Yvonne Freer,et al.  More Information, Less Understanding: A Randomized Study on Consent Issues in Neonatal Research , 2009, Pediatrics.

[24]  B. Young,et al.  How do parents experience being asked to enter a child in a randomised controlled trial? , 2009, BMC medical ethics.

[25]  R. D. de Vries,et al.  Birthing Ethics: What Mothers, Families, Childbirth Educators, Nurses, and Physicians Should Know About the Ethics of Childbirth , 2009, Journal of Perinatal Education.

[26]  D. Drotar,et al.  The role of the consent document in informed consent for pediatric leukemia trials. , 2007, Contemporary clinical trials.

[27]  L. Franck,et al.  The quality of parental consent for research with children: a prospective repeated measure self-report survey. , 2007, International journal of nursing studies.

[28]  A. Gill,et al.  Consent for neonatal research , 2006, Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition.

[29]  C. Grady,et al.  Quality of parental consent in a Ugandan malaria study. , 2005, American journal of public health.

[30]  Terri Voepel-Lewis,et al.  Improving the readability and processability of a pediatric informed consent document: effects on parents' understanding. , 2005, Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine.

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

[32]  E. Kraybill The Challenge of Informed Consent in Neonatal Research , 2004, Journal of Perinatology.

[33]  K. Anand,et al.  Neonatal Research and the Validity of Informed Consent Obtained in the Perinatal Period , 2004, Journal of Perinatology.

[34]  N. McIntosh,et al.  Neonatal research: the parental perspective , 2004, Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition.

[35]  D. Drotar,et al.  Communication of randomization in childhood leukemia trials. , 2004, JAMA.

[36]  R. Nelson,et al.  Self-determination is not an appropriate model for understanding parental permission and child assent. , 2002, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[37]  E. Steyerberg,et al.  Informed consent, parental awareness, and reasons for participating in a randomised controlled study , 1998, Archives of disease in childhood.

[38]  L. Chaisson,et al.  Length and Complexity of US and International HIV Consent Forms from Federal HIV Network Trials , 2011, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[39]  S. Kaasa,et al.  The length of consent documents in oncological trials is doubled in twenty years. , 2009, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[40]  C. Grady,et al.  The quality of informed consent in a clinical research study in Thailand. , 2005, IRB.