↓ Skip to main content

Informed consent in randomised controlled trials: development and preliminary evaluation of a measure of Participatory and Informed Consent (PIC)

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
37 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Informed consent in randomised controlled trials: development and preliminary evaluation of a measure of Participatory and Informed Consent (PIC)
Published in
Trials, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-2048-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia Wade, Daisy Elliott, Kerry N. L. Avery, Daisy Gaunt, Grace J. Young, Rebecca Barnes, Sangeetha Paramasivan, W Bruce Campbell, Jane M. Blazeby, Alison J Birtle, Rob C. Stein, David J Beard, Alison W Halliday, Jenny L. Donovan, On behalf of the ProtecT study group, CLASS study group, Chemorad study group, POUT study group, OPTIMA prelim study group, CSAW study group and ACST-2 study group

Abstract

Informed consent (IC) is an ethical and legal prerequisite for trial participation, yet current approaches evaluating participant understanding for IC during recruitment lack consistency. No validated measure has been identified that evaluates participant understanding for IC based on their contributions during consent interactions. This paper outlines the development and formative evaluation of the Participatory and Informed Consent (PIC) measure for application to recorded recruitment appointments. The PIC allows the evaluation of recruiter information provision and evidence of participant understanding. Published guidelines for IC were reviewed to identify potential items for inclusion. Seventeen purposively sampled trial recruitment appointments from three diverse trials were reviewed to identify the presence of items relevant to IC. A developmental version of the measure (DevPICv1) was drafted and applied to six further recruitment appointments from three further diverse trials to evaluate feasibility, validity, stability and inter-rater reliability. Findings guided revision of the measure (DevPICv2) which was applied to six further recruitment appointments as above. DevPICv1 assessed recruiter information provision (detail and clarity assessed separately) and participant talk (detail and understanding assessed separately) over 20 parameters (or 23 parameters for three-arm trials). Initial application of the measure to six diverse recruitment appointments demonstrated promising stability and inter-rater reliability but a need to simplify the measure to shorten time for completion. The revised measure (DevPICv2) combined assessment of detail and clarity of recruiter information and detail and evidence of participant understanding into two single scales for application to 22 parameters or 25 parameters for three-arm trials. Application of DevPICv2 to six further diverse recruitment appointments showed considerable improvements in feasibility (e.g. time to complete) with good levels of stability (i.e. test-retest reliability) and inter-rater reliability maintained. The DevPICv2 provides a measure for application to trial recruitment appointments to evaluate quality of recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding and participation during IC discussions. Initial evaluation shows promising feasibility, validity, reliability and ability to discriminate across a range of recruiter practice and evidence of participant understanding. More validation work is needed in new clinical trials to evaluate and refine the measure further.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 21 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 22%
Psychology 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 22 31%