scholarly journals Institutional Review Board Independent Ethics Committee Informed Consent Document

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camille Nebeker ◽  
Maryam Gholami ◽  
Daniah Kareem ◽  
Emily Kim

Background: As research involving human participants increasingly occurs with the aid of digital tools (e.g., mobile apps, wearable and remote pervasive sensors), the consent content and delivery process is changing. Informed consent documents to participate in research are lengthy and difficult for prospective participants to read and understand. As the consent communication will need to include concepts and procedures unique to digital health research, making that information accessible and meaningful to the prospective participant is critical for consent to be informed. This paper describes a methodology that researchers can apply when developing a consent communication for digital health research.Methods: A consent document approved by a US institutional review board was deconstructed into segments that aligned with federal requirements for informed consent. Three researchers independently revised each segment of text with a goal of achieving a readability score between a 6–8th grade level. The team then consulted with an external readability expert well-versed in revising informed consent documents into “plain language.” The resulting text was evaluated using Microsoft Word and Online-Utility accessibility software. The final step involved adding visual images and graphics to complement the text. The Digital Health Checklist consent prototype builder was then used to identify areas where the consent content could be expanded to address four key domains of Access and Usability, Privacy, Risks and Benefits, and Data Management.Results: The approved consent was evaluated at a 12.6 grade reading level, whereas the revised language by our study team received 12.4, 12, and 12.58, respectively. The final consent document synthesized the most readable of the three revised versions and was further revised to include language recommended by the software tool for improving readability, which resulted in a final revised consent readability score of a 9.2 grade level. Moreover, word count was reduced from 6,424 in the original consent to 679 in the rewritten consent form.Conclusion: Utilizing an iterative process to design an accessible informed consent document is a first step in achieving meaningful consent to participate in digital health research. This paper describes how a consent form approved by an institutional review board can be made more accessible to a prospective research participant by improving the document readability score, reducing the word count and assessing alignment with the Digital Health Checklist.


2015 ◽  
Vol 06 (03) ◽  
pp. 466-477 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Manion ◽  
K. Hsieh ◽  
M. Harris ◽  
S. H. Fenton

Summary Background: Despite efforts to provide standard definitions of terms such as “medical record”, “computer-based patient record”, “electronic medical record” and “electronic health record”, the terms are still used interchangeably. Initiatives like data and information governance, research biorepositories, and learning health systems require availability and reuse of data, as well as common understandings of the scope for specific purposes. Lacking widely shared definitions, utilization of the afore-mentioned terms in research informed consent documents calls to question whether all participants in the research process — patients, information technology and regulatory staff, and the investigative team — fully understand what data and information they are asking to obtain and agreeing to share. Objectives: This descriptive study explored the terminology used in research informed consent documents when describing patient data and information, asking the question “Does the use of the term “medical record” in the context of a research informed consent document accurately represent the scope of the data involved?” Methods: Informed consent document templates found on 17 Institutional Review Board (IRB) websites with Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) were searched for terms that appeared to be describing the data resources to be accessed. The National Library of Medicine’s (NLM) Terminology Services was searched for definitions provided by key standards groups that deposit terminologies with the NLM. Discussion: The results suggest research consent documents are using outdated terms to describe patient information, health care terminology systems need to consider the context of research for use cases, and that there is significant work to be done to assure the HIPAA Omnibus Rule is applied to contemporary activities such as biorepositories and learning health systems. Conclusions: “Medical record”, a term used extensively in research informed consent documents, is ambiguous and does not serve us well in the context of contemporary information management and governance. Citation: Fenton SH, Manion F, Hsieh K, Harris M. Informed Consent: Does Anyone Really Understand What Is Contained In The Medical Record? Appl Clin Inform 2015; 6: 466–477http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2014-09-SOA-0081


1980 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 122-125
Author(s):  
Dev S. Pathak ◽  
Thomas S. Foster ◽  
Cynthia L. Raehl

Preparation of an effective informed consent document presents significant problems to those investigators not familiar with federal and institutional requirements. This article examines a detailed format for preparation of an informed consent instrument. Prepared by the authors and supplied to potential clinical investigators by a university institutional review committee, the guidelines incorporate Department of Health, Education, and Welfare regulations. An example consent form is provided.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rana Alissa ◽  
Patty D. Williams ◽  
Erika L. Baker ◽  
Jennifer A. Hipp ◽  
Jinous Saremian ◽  
...  

Objective: To show concordance between heel stick and placental blood sample pairs for newborns' pre-transfusion testing and to validate placental blood's tube and gel methodology.Methods: Placental samples were collected for pre-transfusion testing at birth from 78 singleton and twin newborns admitted to our Mother–Baby Unit to compare with the results of heel stick samples taken from same newborns. Gestational age ≥35 weeks, weight ≥2,000 g. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Informed consent was obtained from newborn parents. ABO blood group, Rhesus factor (Rh), direct antiglobulin test (DAT), and antibody screen were performed. Ortho ProVue Analyzer was used for tube and gel methods. McNemar's test for paired categorical data was performed.Results: One hundred percent concordance in 78 pairs for ABO and Rh. Seventy-four pairs were tested for antibodies, 72 were both negative, 1 was both positive, and 1 gave discordant result. Ninety-nine percent concordance, p = 0.999. Sixty-five pairs were both DAT negative, seven were both DAT positive, and six gave discordant results. Ninety-two percent concordance, p = 0.68. Placental blood gave identical results comparing tube with gel methods.Conclusions: Placental blood is suitable for pre-transfusion testing and can replace heel sticks. Placental blood tube and gel methods are validated.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document