Skip to Main Content

RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By and clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.

Accept
RTI International
  • About
    • Office Locations
    • Executive Leadership
    • Corporate Governance
    • Partner with Us
      • U.S. Government
      • Clients and Funding Agencies
      • Industry and Commercial Clients
      • Foundations and Associations
      • Bilateral Agencies and Multilateral Banks
      • Universities and Academic Research Institutions
      • Suppliers and Small Businesses
    • Commitment to Quality
      • RTI's Client Listening Program
    • Ethics and Human Research Protection
    • Living Our Mission
    • Veteran Opportunities at RTI

    About

  • Practice Areas
    • Health
      • Public Health and Well-Being
      • Health Care Transformation
      • Behavioral Health
      • Health Behavior Change
      • Precision Medicine
      • RTI Health Solutions (RTI-HS)
      • RTI Center for Community Health Evaluation and Economics Research
      • Health Equity
      • RTI Health Advance
    • Transformative Research Unit for Equity​
      • Equity Capacity Building Hub
      • Social and Economic Justice Research Collaborative
      • Narrative Research and Community Engagement Lab
    • Education and Workforce Development
      • Early Childhood
      • K-12 Education
      • Postsecondary Education
      • Career and Adult Education and Workforce Development
      • Education Policy, Systems, and Governance
      • Education Research Methodologies
      • Education Technologies
    • International Development
      • Energy for Development
      • Environment
      • Global Food Security, Agriculture, and Nutrition
      • Global Health
      • International Education
      • Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, Learning, and Adapting (MERLA)
      • Youth and Economic Opportunity
      • Building Resilience Against COVID-19 in Developing Countries
      • Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH)
      • RTI Center for Governance
    • Climate Change
      • Clean Energy Technology and Renewables
      • Climate Finance
      • Climate Justice and Equity
      • Climate Planning, Preparedness and Resilience
      • Climate Policy
      • Climate Vulnerability, Adaptation, and Mitigation
      • Economic Impacts of Climate Change
    • Water
      • Food-Energy-Water Nexus
      • Water Quality
      • WASH (Water, Sanitation, Hygiene)
      • Water Resources Management
    • Energy Research
      • Carbon Capture and Utilization
      • Biomass Conversion
      • Natural Gas
      • Energy Efficiency
      • Industrial Water
      • Syngas Processing
    • Environmental Sciences
      • Air Quality
      • RTI Center for Water Resources
      • Urban Sustainability
      • Toxics
      • Climate Change
      • Building Resiliency in the FEW Nexus
      • Climate Change Sciences and Analysis
      • Environmental Policy
      • Environmental Justice
      • Sustainable Materials & Waste Management Solutions
    • Justice Research and Policy
      • RTI Center for Community Safety and Crime Prevention
      • RTI Center for Policing Research and Investigative Science
      • Child Well-Being and Family Strengthening
      • RTI Center for Forensic Sciences
    • Food Security and Agriculture
      • Market Systems Strengthening
      • Food Safety
      • Food and Nutrition
      • Global Food Security, Agriculture, and Nutrition
      • Climate-Smart Agriculture
      • Youth in Agriculture
      • Agricultural Innovation
      • Obesity Prevention
    • Innovation Ecosystems
      • Innovation Advising
      • Innovation for Economic Growth
      • Innovation for Emerging and Developing Economies
      • Innovation for Organizations
      • Research, Technology, and Innovation Policy
      • Technology Acceleration
    • Military Support
      • Military Behavioral Health
      • Military Health and Human Performance
      • Military Sexual Assault, Harassment, and Domestic Violence Prevention
      • Wearable Sensor Technologies
      • Military Health System Transformation

    Practice Areas

  • Services + Capabilities
    • Surveys and Data Collection
      • Survey Design
      • Instrument Development
      • Survey Methodologies
      • Data Collection
      • Establishment Surveys
      • Health Registries
      • Data Analysis and Reporting
      • Research Operations Center
    • Statistics and Data Science
      • Survey Statistics
      • Environmental Statistics
      • Coordinating Centers for Multisite Studies
      • Analysis and Design of Complex Data
      • Biostatistics
      • RTI Center for Data Science
    • Evaluation, Assessment and Analysis
      • Evaluation Design and Execution
      • Advanced Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
      • Evaluation, Monitoring, and Assessment
      • Economic Analysis
      • Evaluating Communication Interventions and Campaigns
      • Evidence Synthesis for Policy and Practice
      • Risk Assessment and Prediction
    • Program Design and Implementation
      • Systems Strengthening and Scaling
      • Capacity Assessment and Building
      • Policy Reform Support
      • Curriculum and Teacher Professional Development
      • Interventions and Prevention Programs
      • Implementation Science
    • Digital Solutions for Social Impact
      • Human-Centered Design of Digital Solutions
      • Digital Product Development
      • Digital Communication Campaigns
      • Digital Data Analytics
    • Research Technologies
      • Survey Technologies
      • Data Management and Decision Support Systems
      • Geospatial Science, Technology, and Visualization
      • ICT for Limited-Resource Settings
      • Mobile Applications
      • Web Applications
      • Bioinformatics
      • Interactive Computing
    • Drug Discovery and Development
      • Medicinal Chemistry
      • Molecular Design and Cheminformatics
      • Behavioral Pharmacology
      • Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics (DMPK)
      • In Vitro Pharmacology, Bioassay Development, and High-Throughput Screening (HTS)
      • Isotope Labeling
      • Regulatory Consulting and Support for Medical Products
    • Analytical Laboratory Sciences
      • Bioanalytical and Toxicology Research
      • Forensic Sciences
      • Physicochemical Characterizations
      • Metabolomics
      • Proficiency Testing and Reference Materials
      • Quality Assurance and Regulatory Compliance
      • Microbiology
      • Analytical Chemistry and Pharmaceutics
    • Engineering & Technology R&D
      • Biomedical Technologies
      • Decarbonization Sciences
      • Environmental Exposure & Protection
      • Materials & Environment
      • Sustainable Energy Solutions

    Services + Capabilities

  • Centers
    • RTI Center for Advanced Methods Development
    • RTI Center for Communication Science
      • Communication Research
      • Communication Design
      • Communication Delivery
    • RTI Center for Data Science
    • RTI Center for Education Services
      • Teaching and Learning
      • Education Leadership
      • Peer Learning Networks
      • Strategic Consulting
    • RTI Center for Forensic Sciences
    • RTI Center for Global Noncommunicable Diseases
      • Program Financing & Economics for NCDs
      • Health Systems Strengthening for NCDs
      • Communication Science and Behavior Change for NCDs
      • Implementation Science for NCDs
    • RTI GenOmics, Bioinformatics, and Translational Research Center
      • Disability Studies
      • Ethics
      • Newborn Screening
    • RTI Center for Water Resources
      • Water Resources Sectors
      • Water Resources Services
      • Water Resources Tools
    • RTI Center for Governance
    • RTI Global Gender Center
    • North Carolina Center for Optimizing Military Performance
    • NCCU-RTI Center for Applied Research in Environmental Sciences
    • RTI Center for Climate Solutions

    Centers

  • Impact
    • Newsroom
    • Insights Blog
    • Events
    • Publications
    • RTI Press
      • About the RTI Press
      • Instructions for Authors
      • RTI Press Collections
    • Projects
    • Global Reach
      • Asia
      • Eastern Europe and Central Asia
      • RTI International India
      • Africa
      • Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
      • Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)

    Impact

  • Experts
    • Our Experts
    • In-Depth With Our Experts
    • Related News
    • Experts In the Media
    • RTI Fellow Program

    Experts

  • Emerging Issues
    • COVID-19 Research
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Global Health Security
    • Cannabis Research
    • Opioid Research
      • Interventions for Opioid Use Disorders
      • Preventing Opioid Misuse and Overdose
      • Treating Opioid Use Disorders
    • Policing Research and Investigative Science
    • Drone Research and Application
    • E-cigarette Research
    • Zika Virus Research
    • Integrated Governance

    Emerging Issues

  • COVID-19 Research + Response
  • Global Reach
  • Insights Blog
  • Newsroom
  • RTI Press
  • Publications
  • Partner With Us
  • Careers
  • Facebook IconTwitter IconInstagram IconYouTube IconLinkedin Icon
  • Home
  • Impact
  • RTI Press
  • Making clinical trials more patient-centered using digital interactive e-consent tools

Making clinical trials more patient-centered using digital interactive e-consent tools

By Barbara Biesecker, Melissa Raspa, Douglas Rupert, Rebecca Moultrie, Robert Furberg, Lauren A. McCormack.

October 2019 Open Access Peer Reviewed

DOI: 10.3768/rtipress.2019.op.0063.1910

Check for Updates Download PDF
Biesecker, B., Raspa, M., Rupert, D., Moultrie, R., Furberg, R., & McCormack, L. A. (2019). Making clinical trials more patient-centered using digital interactive e-consent tools. RTI Press. RTI Press Occasional Paper No. OP-0063-1910 https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2019.op.0063.1910
Copy citation
Share
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Email
Key Points
  • Many participants join trials without reviewing consent forms.
  • Trial participants may feel hopeful and thus not register the risks.
  • E-consent platforms offer an effective, well-received mode of decision support.
  • Consenter (https://www.consenter.org/) provides decision support for clinical trials including people with limited cognitive capacity.

Abstract

Research participants are required to give their consent to participate in clinical trials and nonexempt government-funded studies. The goal is to facilitate participant understanding of the intent of the research, its voluntary nature, and the potential benefits and harms. Ideally, participants make an informed choice whether to participate; one that is based on having sufficient relevant knowledge and that is consistent with their values and preferences. Achieving this objective can be challenging, and as such, many scholars have declared the consent process flawed or “broken.” Moreover, clinical trials are complex studies, and compelling evidence suggests that current consent processes are inadequate in achieving informed choice. E-consent offers a dynamic, engaging consent delivery mode that can effectively support making informed decisions about whether to participate in a trial.

Creative Commons © 2023 RTI International. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Contents

  • Making Clinical Trials More Patient-Centered Using Digital Interactive E-Consent Tools
  • Acknowledgments
  • References

Making Clinical Trials More Patient-Centered Using Digital Interactive E-Consent Tools

By BarbaraBieseckerMelissaRaspaDouglasRupertRebeccaMoultrieRobertFurbergLauren A.McCormack

Making Clinical Trials More Patient-Centered Using Digital Interactive E-Consent Tools

Participants are required by a regulation called the Common Rule to provide consent before participating in clinical trials and nonexempt federally funded human subject research.1,2 The regulations are intended to protect participants from enrolling in studies without adequately understanding the research purpose and that they personally may not benefit and could even be harmed. Typically, eligible individuals meet with a research representative who recites study information from a paper consent form and asks the potential participant if there are any questions or concerns before obtaining a signature.

This process is often insufficient to achieve informed choice among participants. Many factors contribute to the ineffectiveness of this practice. First, some people decide to participate in a study before the consent interaction.3 As such, they may be minimally engaged in the consent process. Other individuals may arrive to the study center with the consent form already signed. In the case of clinical trials, a participant’s eagerness to realize a health benefit, even though one may not be achieved, may impede attention to the potential limitations and harms. Studies of the consent process have likewise demonstrated poor participant understanding of study procedures and outcomes.4,5 Further complicating the challenges to achieving informed consent, clinical studies and their accompanying consent processes have grown in complexity, particularly for multisite clinical trials.

A leading expert on informed consent at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Christine Grady, wrote in a New England Journal of Medicine report that the classic consent interaction is outdated.6 Although John Wilbanks, chief commons officer at Sage Bionetworks, a biomedical research organization, punctuates this sentiment by stating that, “Informed consent has not been implemented as a relationship, but instead as a single-point transaction that must be completed to enroll participants.”7 McNutt and colleagues support this critique with evidence that potential participants spend little time reviewing consent forms.8 Particularly concerning are data from Lee and colleagues indicating that participants in environmental health studies failed to understand the risks of the research in which they enrolled.4 Accordingly, Dr. Gail Henderson has posed the question, “Is Consent Broken?” based on the challenges of consenting participants for genomic sequencing research.9 The concerns raised by this collective evidence persist and call into question whether study participants are adequately informed.

Commentaries by bioethicists often highlight clinical trials as studies that present the greatest challenges to an effective and efficient consent process.10 When consenting to participate in clinical trials, patients frequently misunderstand key information in the consent process, including the rationale and design of the study.5 This misunderstanding can lead to difficulty with recruitment and higher drop-out rates.11 Globally, 90 percent of trials fail to achieve timely recruitment of their targeted population12 and participant dropout rates average 30 percent for Phase 3 trials.13 Given this, recruitment and retention of eligible participants are critical to the success of clinical trials; problems with either can lead to time extensions, underpowered studies, and even early study termination.14 Ensuring that potential participants have a good understanding of the clinical trial through better informed consent procedures can address these recruitment and retention challenges.15–17

Lentz and colleagues report professional consensus that the current informed consent process for clinical trials needs to improve to enhance participants’ understanding.18 One important improvement is greater retention of participants. To address the deficits, the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative published recommendations to improve trial consent by including a tiered consent process that provides critically relevant information customized for decision making about trial participation.18 Consistent with the initiative’s efforts, the Department of Health and Human Services, in recognizing the need to improve the consent process for clinical studies, updated the Common Rule to include a requirement for a clear, concise, and focused summary of key information.1

Drs. Grady6 and Henderson9 both articulate how technology is advancing research methods and clear communication practices, calling for opportunities to develop concise novel approaches to improve informed consent. Addressing this call, Grady and colleagues conducted a randomized trial comparing a short concise consent to standard consent within a multinational trial on the timing of starting antiretroviral therapy in HIV-positive adults and found the longer consent form provided no additional benefits.19 Kim and Kim also tested a simplified clinical trial consent form for its effect on understanding and thus the efficacy of consent information. They found the simplified form to be associated with higher levels of objective and subjective understanding.20 Turbitt and colleagues similarly found a streamlined consent process to be equivalent to standard consent for participating in a genome sequencing study.21 This evidence reinforces Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidance that information should be delivered in a way that is simple, clear, and concise.22

In addition to responding to how information is presented, decision science recognizes individual factors that are also at play when making a decision to enroll in a clinical trial. These cognitive and affective factors have been shown to impede understanding that a clinical trial comes with no guarantee of a positive health outcome. Specifically, several common factors—such as optimism and hope for health gains,23 challenges in understanding probabilities,24 and limited health literacy—adversely affect decision making.25 Further, personal relevance and tailored presentation of information can affect health decision making.26 The offer of participation in a clinical trial is often a novel opportunity for potential participants who have no prior experience to inform their decision. Decision support tools can address many of these factors, such as using plain language and low health literacy standards.

Evidence from a Cochrane review supports the use of decision aids as an effective way to optimize informed consent for clinical trials.27 Decision aids for health-related topics improved several patient reported outcomes: understanding of options and consequences, more realistic expectations, more active participation, and greater decisional satisfaction. Based on these outcomes, Juraskova and colleagues tested the efficacy of a decision aid to enroll in clinical trial or not.28 They found that those who received the decision aid had higher knowledge after deciding to enroll in the trial than those who received standard consent materials. Additionally, those who received the decision aid had lower decisional regret. Higher trial knowledge and less regret suggest the benefits of a decision tool that includes key consent information and allows participants to clarify their values by comparing risks and benefits of participation. Innovative ways to convey information and assess understanding may be effectively presented within this format.

Identifying practical, simpler ways to respect persons’ self-determination and choices led Dr. Grady to observe that information technology may be an effective way to provide informed consent with minimal intrusion into the lives of potential participants.6 Digital informed consent, broadly referred to as “e-consent,” is a technology-based patient-engagement tool that typically presents consent information using multimedia components and may also include a digital signature. E-consent aims to improve understanding among potential participants in clinical trials and subsequent trial retention.

Recent studies demonstrate the benefits of e-consent when compared with the standard informed consent process. Rowbotham and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing an e-consent that combined a video, standard consent language, and an interactive quiz with a paper consent. They demonstrated that the interactive e-consent improved understanding of study procedures in, and the risks of a chemotherapy trial.29 Kraft and colleagues conducted a randomized study assessing three multimedia e-educational aids compared with standard text aids to understand medical practice research.30 Dual-channel approaches, animated videos, and slideshows with voiceover were significantly more effective than single-channel techniques in achieving participant understanding of the research. Similarly, an observational study by Fanaroff and colleagues comparing video- to text-based consent for multicenter trial enrollment found that the sites that implemented video consent more rapidly enrolled the first participant and enrolled older and more ethnically diverse participants than the sites using text consent.31 E-consent platforms can also be readily translated into other languages extending accessibility to more diverse participants. Tenaerts and colleagues cite advances in e-consent, such videos or dual channels that combine visuals with voiceover, followed by quizzes as some of the most striking improvements in clinical trial consent over the past decade.32

The Food and Drug Administration has published guidance on the use of e-consent in clinical studies, including clinical trials.33 Some platforms allow for electronically signing and enrolling in trials, which can be an added benefit. Regardless, e-consent comes with challenges in verifying that participants have the capacity to consent and that participants are the person they claim to be.

Despite recent advances, the challenge of achieving informed consent from research participants with cognitive impairment remains. Individuals with cognitive impairment have a difficult time retaining novel information communicated verbally without prompts. They may also have short attention spans. Although e-consent platforms offer novel ways to convey key information to achieve informed consent, clinical investigators need evidence to determine approaches that are most effective. One randomized study of a hypothetical clinical trial compared standard paper consent to e-consent paired with a digital, interactive education tool for adults with intellectual impairment associated with fragile X syndrome.34 The digital tool included dual-channel delivery of information, interactive elements to illustrate the main concepts of consent and a quiz to check for understanding. Use of the tool by adults with fragile X syndrome was shown to result in enhanced understanding among a subgroup of participants. The combination of e-consent elements (dual-channel information, interactive elements and a quiz) is likely to be the driving factor enhancing understanding34 though individual elements may be more impactful for certain individuals. Research is needed to examine the e-consent process relative to the standard consent process for individuals with cognitive impairments as well also those without including the user experience. Future studies should examine the impact on e-consent on a range of measures including the understanding but also the ability to reason and make informed decisions as a result of increased understanding. Our research has found that higher functioning individuals with fragile X syndrome were more likely to understand the concrete elements of the trial and higher understanding was a significant predictor of appreciation (i.e., one’s ability to link the decision to one’s one situation).34 The digital tool, Consenter, has since been updated and its capacity expanded. It is available through RTI International as a customizable decision tool to achieve informed consent for clinical trials enrolling those with intellectual impairment participants as well as those without cognitive challenges (https://www.consenter.org/).

Updated expectations to improve consent and recent evidence, coupled with innovative technological advancements, highlight the promise of e-consent to improve the consent process for clinical trials. Further, e-consent responds to the call for technology that is minimally intrusive and individualized while conforming with consent regulatory requirements.1

Acknowledgments

We thank Ray Zwycewicz, Mark Koyanagi, and Pete Minelli for their contributions to the development process.

RTI Press Associate Editor: Jenny Wiley

References

1Department of Homeland Security, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Commerce; Social Security Administration, Agency for International Development, et al. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. Fed Reg 2017 Jan 19;82(12):7149–274. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-01-19/pdf/2017-01058.pdf
2Menikoff J, Kaneshiro J, Pritchard I. The common rule, updated. NEJM 2017;376(7):613–5. 10.1056/NEJMp170073628103146
3Stryker JE, Wray RJ, Emmons KM, Winer E, Demetri G. Understanding the decisions of cancer clinical trial participants to enter research studies: Factors associated with informed consent, patient satisfaction, and decisional regret. Patient Educ Counseling 2006;63(1-2):104–9. 10.1016/j.pec.2005.09.00616242898
4Lee R, Lampert S, Wilder L, Sowell AL. Subjects agree to participate in environmental health studies without fully comprehending the associated risk. Intern J Environ Res Public Health 2011;8:830–41. 10.3390/ijerph8030830
5Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: A cross-sectional survey. Lancet 2001;358(9295), 1772–7. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06805-211734235
6Grady C, Cummings SR, Rowbotham MC, McConnell MV, Ashley EA, Kang G. Informed consent. NEJM 2017;376(9):856–67. 10.1056/NEJMra160377328249147
7Wilbanks J. Design issues in e-consent. J Law Med Ethics 2018;46(1):110–8. 10.1177/107311051876602530057442
8McNutt LA, Waltermaurer E, Bednarczyk RA, Carlson BE, Kotval J, McCauley J, et al. Are we misjudging how well informed consent forms are read? J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2008;3(1):89–97. 10.1525/jer.2008.3.1.8919385786
9Henderson GE. Is informed consent broken? American J Med Sci 2011;342(4):267–72. 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e31822a6c4721817873
10Cummings SR, Rowbotham MC. Electronic informed consent and internet-based trials. NEJM 2017;376(9):859–61.
11Wood AM, White IR, Thompson SG. Are missing outcome data adequately handled? A review of published randomized controlled trials in major medical journals. Clin Trials 2004;1(4):368–76. 10.1191/1740774504cn032oa16279275
12National Research Council. The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press; 2010. 10.17226/12955
13Welch BM, Marshall E, Qanungo S, Aziz A, Laken M, Lenert L, Obeid J. Teleconsent: a novel approach to obtain informed consent for research. Contemp Clin Trials Com 2016;3(15):74–9. 10.1016/j.conctc.2016.03.002
14Institute of Medicine (US) Forum on Drug Discovery, Development and Translation. (2010). Transforming clinical research in the United States: challenges and opportunities: workshop summary. Washington (DC): National Academies Press.
15Wilson C, Rooshenas L, Paramasivan S, Elliott D, Jepson M, Strong S, et al. Development of a framework to improve the process of recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs): The SEAR (Screened, Eligible, Approached, Randomised) framework. Clin Trials 2018;19(1):50. 10.1186/s13063-017-2413-629351790
16Donovan JL, Rooshenas L, Jepson M, Elliott D, Wade J, Avery K, et al. Optimising recruitment and informed consent in randomised controlled trials: The development and implementation of the Quintet Recruitment Intervention (QRI). Trials 2016;17(1):283. 10.1186/s13063-016-1391-427278130
17National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. A workshop on health literacy in clinical trials: practice and impact. 2019 Apr 11 [cited 2019 Aug 20]. Available from: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Activities/PublicHealth/HealthLiteracy/2019-APR-11.aspx
18Lentz J, Kennett M, Perlmutter J, Forrest A. Paving the way to a more effective informed consent process: recommendations from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. Contemp Clin Trials 2016;49:65–9. 10.1016/j.cct.2016.06.00527327780
19Grady C, Touloumi G, Walker AS, Smolskis M, Sharma S, Babiker AG, et al. A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial. PLoS One 2017;12(4):e0172607. 10.1371/journal.pone.017260728445471
20Kim EJ, Kim SH. Simplification improves understanding of informed consent information in clinical trials regardless of health literacy level. Clin Trials 2015;12(3):232–6. 10.1177/174077451557113925701156
21Turbitt E, Chrysostomou PP, Peay HL, Heidlebaugh AR, Nelson LM, Biesecker BB. A randomized controlled study of a consent intervention for participating in an NIH genome sequencing study. Eur J Hum Genet 2018;26(5), 622–30. 10.1038/s41431-018-0105-729453419
22Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. TeamSTEPPS fundamentals course: module 3. Communication. 2019 Mar [cited 2019 Aug 20]. https://www.ahrq.gov/teamstepps/instructor/fundamentals/module3/igcommunication.html
23Sisk BA, Kodish E. Therapeutic misperceptions in early-phase cancer trials: from categorical to continuous. IRB (2018;40(4):13–20.10.1002/eahr.40400330387976
24Wright JR, Whelan TJ, Schiff S, Dubois S, Crooks D, Haines PT, et al. Why cancer patients enter randomized clinical trials: exploring the factors that influence their decision. J Clin Oncol 2004;22(21):4312–8. 10.1200/JCO.2004.01.18715514372
25Perrenoud B, Velonaki VS, Bodenmann P, Ramelet AS. The effectiveness of health literacy interventions on the informed consent process of health care users: a systematic review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2015;13(10):82–94. 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-230426571285
26Kreuter MW, Wray RJ. Tailored and targeted health communication: Strategies for enhancing information relevance. Am J Health Behavior 2003;27(1, Suppl 3):S227–32. 10.5993/AJHB.27.1.s3.614672383
27Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;4(4):CD001431. 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub528402085
28Juraskova I, Butow P, Bonner C, Bell ML, Smith AB, Seccombe M, et al. Improving decision making about clinical trial participation–a randomised controlled trial of a decision aid for women considering participation in the IBIS-II breast cancer prevention trial. Br J Cancer 2014;111(1):1–7. 10.1038/bjc.2014.14424892447
29Rowbotham MC, Astin J, Greene K, Cummings SR. Interactive informed consent: randomized comparison with paper consents. PLoS One 2013 March 6;8(3):e58603. 10.1371/journal.pone.005860323484041
30Kraft SA, Constantine M, Magnus D, Porter KM, Lee SS, Green M, et al. A randomized study of multimedia informational aids for research on medical practices: implications for informed consent. Clin Trials 2017;14(1):94–102. 10.1177/174077451666935227625314
31Fanaroff AC, Li S, Webb LE, Miller V, Navar AM, Peterson ED, Wang TY. An observation study of the association of video-versus text-based informed consent with multicenter trial enrollment. Circ-Cardiovasc Qual 2018;11(4):e004675.
32Tenaerts P, Madre L, Landray M. A decade of the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative: what have we accomplished? What have we learned? Clin Trials 2018 Feb;15(1 Suppl):5–12.
33Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Use of electronic informed consent—questions and answers; guidance for institutional review boards, investigators, and sponsors. Fed Register 2016;80(241):90855–7.
34McCormack L, Wylie A, Moultrie R, Furberg R, Wheeler AC, Treiman K, Raspa M. Supporting informed clinical trial decision for those with intellectual disability: results from a randomized controlled trial evaluating the benefits of an electronic decision support tool. Unpublished paper.

Click cover to download publication

Keep Exploring

  • icon-externallink-blue Created with Sketch.

    Full Text on PubMed Bookshelf

  • icon-externallink-blue Created with Sketch.

    View on PubMed

  • icon-externallink-blue Created with Sketch.

    HTML version [Scholastica]

Sustainable Development Goals

  • Goal 3: Good Health and Well Being

Contact

To contact an author or seek permission to use copyrighted content, contact our editorial team

  • +1 919 541 6490
  • rtipress@rti.org

Meet the Experts

View All Experts
Barbara Biesecker

Barbara Biesecker

Rebecca R. Moultrie

Douglas J. Rupert

Douglas J. Rupert

Melissa Raspa

Melissa Raspa

Lauren McCormack

Lauren McCormack

Related Publications

View All Press
OCCASIONAL PAPER

Bringing an equity-centered framework to research

OCCASIONAL PAPER

Culturally informed community engagement

RESEARCH REPORT

Substance misuse prevention program attendance

RESEARCH BRIEF

COVID-19’s impact on clinical research

OCCASIONAL PAPER

Social determinants of health

OCCASIONAL PAPER

Challenges facing CAHPS surveys and opportunities for modernization

RESEARCH REPORT

Artificially intelligent social risk adjustment

OCCASIONAL PAPER

The need for a diverse environmental justice workforce

Recent Publications

View All Press
OCCASIONAL PAPER

Bringing an equity-centered framework to research

OCCASIONAL PAPER

The Preschool Entitlement

OCCASIONAL PAPER

Culturally informed community engagement

RESEARCH REPORT

Substance misuse prevention program attendance

RTI Logo
Partner With Us
  • US Government
  • Commercial
  • Foundations & Associations
  • Multilateral Donors
  • Universities
  • Suppliers
Site
  • Privacy Policy
  • Security Policy
  • Site Map
  • Terms of Use
  • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
Contact Us
Facebook Icon Twitter Icon Instagram Icon YouTube Icon Linkedin Icon
delivering the promise of science
for global good
RTI Health Solutions RTI Innovation Advisors RTI Health Advance

© 2023 RTI International. RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. RTI and the RTI logo are U.S. registered trademarks of Research Triangle Institute.