Dataset Information

The impact of central IRB's on informed consent readability and trial adherence in SPRINT.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Federal agencies have encouraged the use of central institutional review boards (CIRBs) for multi-site clinical trials. There is limited evidence supporting the use of CIRBs. Our aim is to evaluate how SPRINT sites regulated by CIRBs performed regarding informed consent readability and participant trial adherence compared to those regulated by local IRBs.

Methods

We conducted a cohort study using the SPRINT clinical trial. We collected the IRB of record from the stamped and approved 2012 informed consents from each of the sites. We defined CIRB as an IRB for more than one SPRINT site. Our outcomes were informed consent readability measured using the Flesch-Kincaid readability scale and trial adherence defined as a loss to follow-up, consent withdrawal, and missed last 3-month visit.

Results

Sixty-one percent of all SPRINT sites used a CIRB as their IRB of record. The adjusted mean grade reading level for CIRB consents was 13.4 (95% CI 12.6-13.8) compared to 12.3 (95% CI 12.1-13.1) for non CIRB consents (p = 0.07). CIRB sites had similar rates of withdrawal of consent and loss to follow-up as non-CIRB sites; subjects missing the last appointment of the study were more likely to come from sites regulated by a CIRB. The Veterans Affairs CIRB had the lowest rate of withdrawal of consent (1.9%) and the lowest rate of missed appointments (1.9%) among CIRBs.

Conclusions

Niether CIRB-regulated sites nor IRB regulated sites enforce the recommended readability level of the informed consent documents. Sites regulated by both IRBs had similar participant trial adherence.

SUBMITTER: Tamariz L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6627564 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The impact of central IRB's on informed consent readability and trial adherence in SPRINT.

Tamariz Leonardo L Gajardo Mitscher M Still Carolyn H CH Gren Lisa H LH Clark Elizabeth E Walsh Sandy S Whittle Jeff J Nord John J Ramsey Thomas T Contreras Gabriel G

Contemporary clinical trials communications 20190706

<h4>Background</h4>Federal agencies have encouraged the use of central institutional review boards (CIRBs) for multi-site clinical trials. There is limited evidence supporting the use of CIRBs. Our aim is to evaluate how SPRINT sites regulated by CIRBs performed regarding informed consent readability and participant trial adherence compared to those regulated by local IRBs.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a cohort study using the SPRINT clinical trial. We collected the IRB of record from the stamped ...[more]

PMID: 31338481

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceInformed consent is a fundamental element of research ethics. The COVID-19 vaccine trials are high profile trials that have enrolled more than 100 000 participants. Consent documents must be succinct and understandable to ensure informed voluntary participation.ObjectiveTo assess how well informed consent documents of the COVID-19 vaccine trials achieve the ideal of being succinct and understandable, and to create a shorter, more readable document.Design, setting, and participantsThis quality improvement study collected and analyzed the informed consent documents used in 4 COVID-19 vaccine phase III randomized clinical trials to quantitatively assess readability and length and, based on this analysis, created a measurably more accessible informed consent document. Analysis was conducted from October 2020 to January 2021.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were number of words (measured as word count), time-to-read (measured at reading speeds of 175-300 words per minute), language complexity (measured using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level assessment), and readability (measured using Flesch Reading Ease Score). Secondary outcomes included clarity of how the placebo group could access the vaccine if it is proven safe and effective. The study also examined the length and readability of an improved consent document.ResultsThe 4 informed consent documents were a mean (range) of 8333 (7821 to 9340) words long, with a mean (range) 35 (32.6 to 38.9) minutes to read at 240 words per minute. All documents exceeded grade 9 language complexity and scored lower than 60 in the formal reading ease metric, which constitutes difficult. Only 1 document specified that participants in the placebo group might receive vaccine. It was possible to write a document in fewer than 3000 words with a grade 7 to 8 reading level and a formal readability score that was not difficult.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that existing COVID-19 vaccine informed consent documents were too long, difficult to read, and exceeded grade 9 in language complexity. It was possible to create a shorter, more readable informed consent document for these trials.

Project description:ImportanceAppropriate informed consent processes are crucial to preservation of patient autonomy and shared decision making. Although half of patients with cancer receive radiotherapy, it is unknown whether current consent practices are comprehensible for patients.ObjectiveTo characterize use, specificity, and readability of clinical informed consent forms for radiotherapy, hypothesizing that forms would be higher than the recommended sixth- to eighth-grade readability level.Design, setting, and participantsThis nationwide cross-sectional survey study and readability analysis was conducted from 2016 to 2018 and included 89 academic radiation oncology departments that were part of the 2016 Electronic Residency Application Service. Department leaders (clinical directors, chairs, and personal contacts of study authors) at academic radiation oncology departments were contacted via email.Main outcomes and measuresReadability levels were measured by 7 validated readability indices, including the Ford, Caylor, Sticht (FORCAST) index for nonnarrative texts. Difficult words were identified using The Living Word Vocabulary, which describes the readability grade levels of 40 000 common words.ResultsOf 89 departments, 67 (75%) responded to questions and 57 (64%) provided 113 forms for analysis. Departments providing forms did not differ substantially from others in terms of region, residency size, research output, rural vs urban location, or public vs private institution status. All departments obtained patient written informed consent before radiotherapy; 38 (57%) used body site-specific forms. Using the most conservative (low-score) estimate, mean form readability ranged from grade level 10.6 to 14.2. By 7 distinct indices, only 9 (8%) of 113 forms met the recommended eighth-grade readability level, and 4 (4%) forms met a sixth-grade level. Not a single form met either recommendation based on the FORCAST index. Forms used an average of 7.2 difficult words. Body site-specific forms had considerably better readability than general consent forms.Conclusions and relevanceThis nationwide study of informed consent practices for cancer treatment with radiotherapy demonstrates that while all US academic radiotherapy departments use written consent forms, it is rare for templates to meet the recommended readability levels for patient materials. These data suggest the need for reevaluation and modification of the approach to radiotherapy consent, ideally with guidance and templates designed by national professional organizations.

Project description:IntroductionEarly phase cancer clinical trials have become increasingly complicated in terms of patient selection and trial procedures-this is reflected in the increasing length of participant information sheets (PIS). Informed consent for early phase clinical trials has been contentious due to the potential ethical issues associated with performing experimental research on a terminally ill population which has exhausted standard treatment options. Empirical studies have demonstrated significant gaps in patient understanding regarding the nature and intent of these trials. This study aims to test whether enhanced informed consent for patient education can improve patient scores on a validated questionnaire testing clinical trial comprehension.Methods and analysisThis is a randomised controlled trial that will allocate patients who are eligible to participate in one of four investigator-initiated clinical trials at the Royal Marsden Drug Development Unit to either a standard arm or an experimental arm, stratified by age and educational level. The standard arm will involve the full length trial PIS, followed by electronic or paper administration of the Quality of Informed Consent Questionnaire Parts A and B (QuIC-A and QuIC-B). The experimental arm will involve the full length trial PIS, exposure to a two-page study aid and 10 online educational videos, followed by administration of the QuIC-A and QuIC-B. The primary endpoint will be the difference (using a one-sided two-sample t-test) in the QuIC-A score, which measures objective understanding, between the standard and experimental arm. Accrual target is at least 17 patients per arm to detect an 8 point difference (80% power, alpha 0.05).Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was granted by the National Health Service Health Research Authority on 15 June 2020-IRAS Project ID 277065, Protocol Number CCR5165, REC Reference 20/EE/0155. Results will be disseminated via publication in a relevant journal.Trial registration numberNCT04407676; Pre-results.

Dataset Information

The impact of central IRB's on informed consent readability and trial adherence in SPRINT.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The impact of central IRB's on informed consent readability and trial adherence in SPRINT.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets