Comparative Effectiveness of eConsent: Systematic Review

被引:0
|
作者
Cohen, Edwin [1 ,6 ]
Byrom, Bill [2 ]
Becher, Anja [3 ]
Jornten-Karlsson, Magnus [4 ]
Mackenzie, Andrew K. [5 ]
机构
[1] AstraZeneca BV, The Hague, Netherlands
[2] Signant Hlth, London, England
[3] Oxford PharmaGenesis, Oxford, England
[4] AstraZeneca, Gothenburg, Sweden
[5] Nottingham Trent Univ, Nottingham, England
[6] AstraZeneca BV, Prinses Beatrixlaan 582, NL-2595 BM The Hague, Netherlands
关键词
acceptability; clinical trial; comprehension; digital consent; eConsent; effectiveness; electronic consent; informed consent form; patient engagement; usability; INFORMED-CONSENT PROCESS; MULTIMEDIA CONSENT; SUSTAINED ATTENTION; CLINICAL-TRIALS; TOOL; SCHIZOPHRENIA; QUALITY;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Providing informed consent means agreeing to participate in a clinical trial and having understood what is involved. Flawed informed consent processes, including missing dates and signatures, are common regulatory audit findings. Electronic consent (eConsent) uses digital technologies to enable the consenting process. It aims to improve participant comprehension and engagement with study information and to address data quality concerns. Objective: This systematic literature review aimed to assess the effectiveness of eConsent in terms of patient comprehension, acceptability, usability, and study enrollment and retention rates, as well as the effects of eConsent on the time patients took to perform the consenting process ("cycle time") and on-site workload in comparison with traditional paper-based consenting. Methods: The systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Ovid Embase and Ovid MEDLINE were systematically searched for publications reporting original, comparative data on the effectiveness of eConsent in terms of patient comprehension, acceptability, usability, enrollment and retention rates, cycle time, and site workload. The methodological validity of the studies that compared outcomes for comprehension, acceptability, and usability across paper consent and eConsent was assessed. Study methodologies were categorized as having "high" validity if comprehensive assessments were performed using established instruments. Results: Overall, 37 publications describing 35 studies (13,281 participants) were included. All studies comparing eConsenting and paper-based consenting for comprehension (20/35, 57% of the studies; 10 with "high" validity), acceptability (8/35, 23% of the studies; 1 with "high" validity), and usability (5/35, 14% of the studies; 1 with "high" validity) reported significantly better results with eConsent, better results but without significance testing, or no significant differences in overall results. None of the studies reported better results with paper than with eConsent. Among the "high" validity studies, 6 studies on comprehension reported significantly better understanding of at least some concepts, the study on acceptability reported statistically significant higher satisfaction scores, and the study on usability reported statistically significant higher usability scores with eConsent than with paper (P<.05 for all). Cycle times were increased with eConsent, potentially reflecting greater patient engagement with the content. Data on enrollment and retention were limited. Comparative data from site staff and other study researchers indicated the potential for reduced workload and lower administrative burden with eConsent. Conclusions: This systematic review showed that compared with patients using paper-based consenting, patients using eConsent had a better understanding of the clinical trial information, showed greater engagement with content, and rated the consenting process as more acceptable and usable. eConsent solutions thus have the potential to enhance understanding, acceptability, and usability of the consenting process while inherently being able to address data quality concerns, including those related to flawed consenting processes.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW (SRL) OF COMPARATIVE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF HORMONAL LARCS
    Crespi, S.
    Bianco, J.
    Grigolon, R. B.
    Picoli, R.
    Ramires, Y.
    Bueno, R. L.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2022, 25 (07) : S328 - S328
  • [32] Systematic review on the comparative effectiveness of foot orthoses in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
    Tenten-Diepenmaat, Marloes
    Dekker, Joost
    Heymans, Martijn W.
    Roorda, Leo D.
    Vlieland, Thea P. M. Vliet
    van der Leeden, Marike
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FOOT AND ANKLE RESEARCH, 2019, 12 (1)
  • [34] Systematic review: Comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer
    Wilt, Timothy J.
    MacDonald, Roderick
    Rutks, Indulis
    Shamilyan, Tatyana A.
    Taylor, Brent C.
    Kane, Robert L.
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2008, 148 (06) : 435 - 448
  • [35] Privacy Technology to Support Data Sharing for Comparative Effectiveness Research A Systematic Review
    Jiang, Xiaoqian
    Sarwate, Anand D.
    Ohno-Machado, Lucila
    [J]. MEDICAL CARE, 2013, 51 (08) : S58 - S65
  • [36] Comparative Effectiveness and Harms of Intraoperative Transesophageal Echocardiography in Noncardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review
    Fayad, Ashraf
    Shillcutt, Sasha
    Meineri, Massimiliano
    Ruddy, Terrence D.
    Ansari, Mohammed Toseef
    [J]. SEMINARS IN CARDIOTHORACIC AND VASCULAR ANESTHESIA, 2018, 22 (02) : 122 - 136
  • [37] Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: a systematic review of comparative effectiveness and safety
    Wolf, Sarah
    Goetz, Gregor
    Wernly, Bernhard
    Wild, Claudia
    [J]. ESC HEART FAILURE, 2023, 10 (02): : 808 - 823
  • [38] Systematic Review: Comparative Effectiveness of Medications to Reduce Risk for Primary Breast Cancer
    Nelson, Heidi D.
    Fu, Rongwei
    Griffin, Jessica C.
    Nygren, Peggy
    Smith, Beth
    Humphrey, Linda
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2009, 151 (10) : 703 - W235
  • [39] Design characteristics of comparative effectiveness trials for the relief of symptomatic dyspepsia: A systematic review
    Elliott, Natalie
    Steel, Amie
    Leech, Bradley
    Peng, Wenbo
    [J]. INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE RESEARCH, 2021, 10 (02)
  • [40] Comparative Effectiveness of Management Strategies for Renal Artery Stenosis An Updated Systematic Review
    Raman, Gowri
    Adam, Gaelen P.
    Halladay, Christopher W.
    Langberg, Valerie N.
    Azodo, Ijeoma A.
    Balk, Ethan M.
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2016, 165 (09) : 635 - +