已入深夜,您辛苦了!由于当前在线用户较少,发布求助请尽量完整的填写文献信息,科研通机器人24小时在线,伴您度过漫漫科研夜!祝你早点完成任务,早点休息,好梦!

An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff

知情同意 自治 医学教育 医学 研究设计 定性研究 封闭式问题 心理学 研究伦理 家庭医学 替代医学 病理 法学 社会学 精神科 统计 社会科学 数学 政治学
作者
Lydia O’ Sullivan,Laura Feeney,Rachel Crowley,Prasanth Sukumar,Éilish McAuliffe,Peter Doran
出处
期刊:Trials [Springer Nature]
卷期号:22 (1) 被引量:19
标识
DOI:10.1186/s13063-021-05493-1
摘要

Abstract Background The process of informed consent for enrolment to a clinical research study can be complex for both participants and research staff. Challenges include respecting the potential participant’s autonomy and information needs while simultaneously providing adequate information to enable an informed decision. Qualitative research with small sample sizes has added to our understanding of these challenges. However, there is value in garnering the perspectives of research participants and staff across larger samples to explore the impact of contextual factors (time spent, the timing of the discussion and the setting), on the informed consent process. Methods Research staff and research participants from Ireland and the UK were invited to complete an anonymous survey by post or online (research participants) and online (research staff). The surveys aimed to quantify the perceptions of research participants and staff regarding some contextual factors about the process of informed consent. The survey, which contained 14 and 16 multiple choice questions for research participants and staff respectively, was analysed using descriptive statistics. Both surveys included one optional, open-ended question, which were analysed thematically. Results Research participants (169) and research staff (115) completed the survey. Research participants were predominantly positive about the informed consent process but highlighted the importance of having sufficient time and the value of providing follow-up once the study concludes, e.g. providing results to participants. Most staff (74.4%) staff reported that they felt very confident or confident facilitating informed consent discussions, but 63% felt information leaflets were too long and/or complicated, 56% were concerned about whether participants had understood complex information and 40% felt that time constraints were a barrier. A dominant theme from the open-ended responses to the staff survey was the importance of adequate time and resources. Conclusions Research participants in this study were overwhelmingly positive about their experience of the informed consent process. However, research staff expressed concern about how much participants have understood and studies of patient comprehension of research study information would seem to confirm these fears. This study highlights the importance of allocating adequate time to informed consent discussions, and research staff could consider using Teach Back techniques. Trial Registration Not applicable
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
刚刚
刚刚
焱焱发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
Wenrry发布了新的文献求助10
2秒前
axa发布了新的文献求助30
4秒前
5秒前
Venus发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
5秒前
汉堡包应助洁净的钢笔采纳,获得10
6秒前
7秒前
8秒前
忧郁含海发布了新的文献求助10
8秒前
Jasper应助焱焱采纳,获得10
9秒前
10秒前
rdx发布了新的文献求助10
12秒前
13秒前
赘婿应助清脆的台灯采纳,获得50
13秒前
violet兰发布了新的文献求助10
14秒前
mouxq发布了新的文献求助10
14秒前
15秒前
16秒前
天天快乐应助阿哈采纳,获得10
16秒前
18秒前
jeep先生完成签到,获得积分10
19秒前
19秒前
魏白晴完成签到,获得积分10
19秒前
77发布了新的文献求助10
19秒前
小鱼儿完成签到 ,获得积分10
19秒前
21秒前
小tiger完成签到,获得积分10
23秒前
24秒前
所所应助Wenrry采纳,获得10
24秒前
我是站长才怪应助赵文龙采纳,获得10
24秒前
CipherSage应助Annnnnnnnnn采纳,获得10
24秒前
25秒前
Orange应助畅快的枫采纳,获得10
28秒前
28秒前
黎_完成签到,获得积分10
28秒前
半圭为璋发布了新的文献求助10
30秒前
30秒前
高分求助中
Востребованный временем 2500
Hopemont Capacity Assessment Interview manual and scoring guide 1000
Injection and Compression Molding Fundamentals 1000
Classics in Total Synthesis IV: New Targets, Strategies, Methods 1000
Mantids of the euro-mediterranean area 600
The Oxford Handbook of Educational Psychology 600
Mantodea of the World: Species Catalog Andrew M 500
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 医学 生物 材料科学 工程类 有机化学 生物化学 内科学 物理 纳米技术 计算机科学 基因 遗传学 化学工程 复合材料 免疫学 物理化学 细胞生物学 催化作用 病理
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 3422670
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 3023016
关于积分的说明 8903192
捐赠科研通 2710467
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1486443
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 687061
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 682299