Alternative consent models for comparative effectiveness studies

Views of patients from two institutions

Nancy E Kass, Ruth R Faden, Rachel E. Fabi, Stephanie Morain, Kristina Hallez, Danielle Whicher, Sean Tunis, Rachael Moloney, Donna Messner, James Pitcavage

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Informed consent requirements generally require a lengthy process and signed documentation for patients to participate in clinical research. With growing interest in comparative effectiveness research (CER), whereby patients receive approved (nonexperimental) medicines for their medical condition, questions have been raised whether the same consent requirements should apply. Little input from patients has been part of these debates. Methods: We conducted two “deliberative engagement sessions” with patients from Johns Hopkins Community Physicians (JHCP) and Geisinger Health System (GHS). Full-day sessions introduced participants to two different CER designs (observational vs. randomized) comparing two antihypertensive medications and three disclosure or consent approaches: Opt-In, Opt-Out, and “General Approval.” Sessions consisted of presentations and extensive discussion at small group tables. Pre- and posttest surveys were completed by participants before and after all-day discussions measuring attitudes about research and about each of the three disclosure/consent options. Results: One hundred thirty-seven adults over age 40 years participated. Attitudes were similar between JHCP and GHS. Participants strongly preferred Opt-In or Opt-Out consent options to General Approval for both observational and randomized designs. For the randomized CER study, 70% liked Opt-In, 65% liked Opt-Out, and 40% liked General Approval. In discussing disclosure/consent options, patients cared most about choice, information, privacy and confidentiality, quality of the research, trust, respect, and impact of the study on patient care. Conclusions: The majority of participants from two different types of health systems liked both Opt-In and Opt-Out approaches for observational and randomized designs for low-risk CER. There were no posttest differences in the proportion liking Opt-In versus Opt-Out. Patients in this study wanted to be told about research and have a choice, but were very open to such disclosures being streamlined. Policymakers may find patients' views about what matters to them in the context of consent and CER relevant.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-14
Number of pages14
JournalAJOB Empirical Bioethics
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Apr 6 2016

Fingerprint

Comparative Effectiveness Research
Disclosure
Research
Health
health
physician
attitude research
Physicians
Privacy
Confidentiality
Consent
Informed Consent
patient care
Documentation
Antihypertensive Agents
small group
research planning
community
documentation
privacy

Keywords

  • choice
  • comparative effectiveness research
  • disclosure
  • informed consent
  • respect
  • streamlined consent

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health(social science)
  • Philosophy
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Alternative consent models for comparative effectiveness studies : Views of patients from two institutions. / Kass, Nancy E; Faden, Ruth R; Fabi, Rachel E.; Morain, Stephanie; Hallez, Kristina; Whicher, Danielle; Tunis, Sean; Moloney, Rachael; Messner, Donna; Pitcavage, James.

In: AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 06.04.2016, p. 1-14.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kass, Nancy E ; Faden, Ruth R ; Fabi, Rachel E. ; Morain, Stephanie ; Hallez, Kristina ; Whicher, Danielle ; Tunis, Sean ; Moloney, Rachael ; Messner, Donna ; Pitcavage, James. / Alternative consent models for comparative effectiveness studies : Views of patients from two institutions. In: AJOB Empirical Bioethics. 2016 ; pp. 1-14.
@article{be06616855d248a684b56a316df2c1c9,
title = "Alternative consent models for comparative effectiveness studies: Views of patients from two institutions",
abstract = "Background: Informed consent requirements generally require a lengthy process and signed documentation for patients to participate in clinical research. With growing interest in comparative effectiveness research (CER), whereby patients receive approved (nonexperimental) medicines for their medical condition, questions have been raised whether the same consent requirements should apply. Little input from patients has been part of these debates. Methods: We conducted two “deliberative engagement sessions” with patients from Johns Hopkins Community Physicians (JHCP) and Geisinger Health System (GHS). Full-day sessions introduced participants to two different CER designs (observational vs. randomized) comparing two antihypertensive medications and three disclosure or consent approaches: Opt-In, Opt-Out, and “General Approval.” Sessions consisted of presentations and extensive discussion at small group tables. Pre- and posttest surveys were completed by participants before and after all-day discussions measuring attitudes about research and about each of the three disclosure/consent options. Results: One hundred thirty-seven adults over age 40 years participated. Attitudes were similar between JHCP and GHS. Participants strongly preferred Opt-In or Opt-Out consent options to General Approval for both observational and randomized designs. For the randomized CER study, 70{\%} liked Opt-In, 65{\%} liked Opt-Out, and 40{\%} liked General Approval. In discussing disclosure/consent options, patients cared most about choice, information, privacy and confidentiality, quality of the research, trust, respect, and impact of the study on patient care. Conclusions: The majority of participants from two different types of health systems liked both Opt-In and Opt-Out approaches for observational and randomized designs for low-risk CER. There were no posttest differences in the proportion liking Opt-In versus Opt-Out. Patients in this study wanted to be told about research and have a choice, but were very open to such disclosures being streamlined. Policymakers may find patients' views about what matters to them in the context of consent and CER relevant.",
keywords = "choice, comparative effectiveness research, disclosure, informed consent, respect, streamlined consent",
author = "Kass, {Nancy E} and Faden, {Ruth R} and Fabi, {Rachel E.} and Stephanie Morain and Kristina Hallez and Danielle Whicher and Sean Tunis and Rachael Moloney and Donna Messner and James Pitcavage",
year = "2016",
month = "4",
day = "6",
doi = "10.1080/23294515.2016.1156188",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--14",
journal = "AJOB Empirical Bioethics",
issn = "2329-4515",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Alternative consent models for comparative effectiveness studies

T2 - Views of patients from two institutions

AU - Kass, Nancy E

AU - Faden, Ruth R

AU - Fabi, Rachel E.

AU - Morain, Stephanie

AU - Hallez, Kristina

AU - Whicher, Danielle

AU - Tunis, Sean

AU - Moloney, Rachael

AU - Messner, Donna

AU - Pitcavage, James

PY - 2016/4/6

Y1 - 2016/4/6

N2 - Background: Informed consent requirements generally require a lengthy process and signed documentation for patients to participate in clinical research. With growing interest in comparative effectiveness research (CER), whereby patients receive approved (nonexperimental) medicines for their medical condition, questions have been raised whether the same consent requirements should apply. Little input from patients has been part of these debates. Methods: We conducted two “deliberative engagement sessions” with patients from Johns Hopkins Community Physicians (JHCP) and Geisinger Health System (GHS). Full-day sessions introduced participants to two different CER designs (observational vs. randomized) comparing two antihypertensive medications and three disclosure or consent approaches: Opt-In, Opt-Out, and “General Approval.” Sessions consisted of presentations and extensive discussion at small group tables. Pre- and posttest surveys were completed by participants before and after all-day discussions measuring attitudes about research and about each of the three disclosure/consent options. Results: One hundred thirty-seven adults over age 40 years participated. Attitudes were similar between JHCP and GHS. Participants strongly preferred Opt-In or Opt-Out consent options to General Approval for both observational and randomized designs. For the randomized CER study, 70% liked Opt-In, 65% liked Opt-Out, and 40% liked General Approval. In discussing disclosure/consent options, patients cared most about choice, information, privacy and confidentiality, quality of the research, trust, respect, and impact of the study on patient care. Conclusions: The majority of participants from two different types of health systems liked both Opt-In and Opt-Out approaches for observational and randomized designs for low-risk CER. There were no posttest differences in the proportion liking Opt-In versus Opt-Out. Patients in this study wanted to be told about research and have a choice, but were very open to such disclosures being streamlined. Policymakers may find patients' views about what matters to them in the context of consent and CER relevant.

AB - Background: Informed consent requirements generally require a lengthy process and signed documentation for patients to participate in clinical research. With growing interest in comparative effectiveness research (CER), whereby patients receive approved (nonexperimental) medicines for their medical condition, questions have been raised whether the same consent requirements should apply. Little input from patients has been part of these debates. Methods: We conducted two “deliberative engagement sessions” with patients from Johns Hopkins Community Physicians (JHCP) and Geisinger Health System (GHS). Full-day sessions introduced participants to two different CER designs (observational vs. randomized) comparing two antihypertensive medications and three disclosure or consent approaches: Opt-In, Opt-Out, and “General Approval.” Sessions consisted of presentations and extensive discussion at small group tables. Pre- and posttest surveys were completed by participants before and after all-day discussions measuring attitudes about research and about each of the three disclosure/consent options. Results: One hundred thirty-seven adults over age 40 years participated. Attitudes were similar between JHCP and GHS. Participants strongly preferred Opt-In or Opt-Out consent options to General Approval for both observational and randomized designs. For the randomized CER study, 70% liked Opt-In, 65% liked Opt-Out, and 40% liked General Approval. In discussing disclosure/consent options, patients cared most about choice, information, privacy and confidentiality, quality of the research, trust, respect, and impact of the study on patient care. Conclusions: The majority of participants from two different types of health systems liked both Opt-In and Opt-Out approaches for observational and randomized designs for low-risk CER. There were no posttest differences in the proportion liking Opt-In versus Opt-Out. Patients in this study wanted to be told about research and have a choice, but were very open to such disclosures being streamlined. Policymakers may find patients' views about what matters to them in the context of consent and CER relevant.

KW - choice

KW - comparative effectiveness research

KW - disclosure

KW - informed consent

KW - respect

KW - streamlined consent

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962907308&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84962907308&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/23294515.2016.1156188

DO - 10.1080/23294515.2016.1156188

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 14

JO - AJOB Empirical Bioethics

JF - AJOB Empirical Bioethics

SN - 2329-4515

ER -