Attitudes Toward Risk and Informed Consent for Research on Medical Practices

Abstract

Background The U.S. Office for Human Research Protections has proposed that end points of randomized trials comparing the effectiveness of standard medical practices are risks of research that would require disclosure and written informed consent, but data are lacking on the views of potential participants. Objective To assess attitudes of U.S. adults about risks and preferences for notification and consent for research on medical practices. Design Cross-sectional survey conducted in August 2014. Setting Web-based questionnaire. Patients 1095 U.S. adults sampled from an online panel (n = 805) and an online convenience river sample (n = 290). Measurements Attitudes toward risk, informed consent, and willingness to participate in 3 research scenarios involving medical record review and randomization of usual medical practices. Results 97% of respondents agreed that health systems should evaluate standard treatments. Most wanted to be asked for permission to participate in each of 3 scenarios (range, 75.2% to 80.4%), even if it involved only medical record review, but most would accept nonwritten (oral) permission or general notification if obtaining written permission would make the research too difficult to conduct (range, 70.2% to 82.7%). Most perceived additional risk from each scenario (range, 64.0% to 81.6%). Limitation Use of hypothetical scenarios and a nonprobability sample that was not fully representative of the U.S. population. Conclusion Most respondents preferred to be asked for permission to participate in observational and randomized research evaluating usual medical practices, but they are willing to accept less elaborate approaches than written consent if research would otherwise be impracticable. These attitudes are not aligned with proposed regulatory guidance. Primary Funding Source National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health.

Patients' views of consent in clinical trials for acute myocardial infarction: impact of trial design

“…These data echo other published reports regarding MI trial enrolment. They are also consistent with evidence suggesting that patients have a preference for some form of consent in CER studies more generally and have implications in the context of recent arguments against prospective consent for these trials 19 20. At a minimum, these findings do not support a claim that enrolment without prospective consent in AMI trials investigating treatments within the standard of care can be based on preferences of patients.…”

The patient's perspective on the need for informed consent for minimal risk studies: Development of a survey-based measure

“…However, there were no significant relationships between any of the sociodemographics studied and the CTSs. Different from the participants in the previous surveys by Gaylin et al (2011) and those of a recent survey using three vignettes to assess attitudes toward informed consent (Cho et al 2015), respondents for this study were hospitalized patients, who were older, in poorer health, and more likely to have previously participated in research studies.…”

Low risk pragmatic trials do not always require participants’ informed consent

“…But if a waiver of informed consent was the only way a trial of high social value could be done, would these same investigators change their minds? Surveys conducted in the US have shown that both the public27 and patients28 who endorse written or verbal consent in low risk pragmatic RCTs change their minds if this would make the trial impractical.…”