Using technology to increase reach and optimize consent experience for a large-scale research program.

IF 2.1 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science Pub Date : 2025-01-25 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1017/cts.2024.640
Emma Coen, Daniel P Judge, Samantha Norman, John T Clark, Andrew Cates, Randolph Thornhill, Kelly Hunt, Lori McMahon, Leslie Lenert, Caitlin G Allen
{"title":"Using technology to increase reach and optimize consent experience for a large-scale research program.","authors":"Emma Coen, Daniel P Judge, Samantha Norman, John T Clark, Andrew Cates, Randolph Thornhill, Kelly Hunt, Lori McMahon, Leslie Lenert, Caitlin G Allen","doi":"10.1017/cts.2024.640","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The consent process for research studies can be burdensome for potential participants due to complex information and lengthy consent forms. This pragmatic study aimed to improve the consent experience and evaluate its impact on participant decision making, study knowledge, and satisfaction with the In Our DNA SC program, a population-based genomic screening initiative. We compared two consent procedures: standard consent (SC) involving a PDF document and enhanced consent (EC) incorporating a pictograph and true or false questions. Decision-making control, study knowledge, satisfaction, and time to consent were assessed. We analyzed data for 109 individuals who completed the SC and 96 who completed the EC. Results indicated strong decision-making control and high levels of knowledge and satisfaction in both groups. While no significant differences were found between the two groups, the EC experience took longer for participants to complete. Future modifications include incorporating video modules and launching a Spanish version of the consent experience. Overall, this study contributes to the growing literature on consent improvements and highlights the need to assess salient components and explore participant preferences for receiving consent information.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"e15"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11795863/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.640","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The consent process for research studies can be burdensome for potential participants due to complex information and lengthy consent forms. This pragmatic study aimed to improve the consent experience and evaluate its impact on participant decision making, study knowledge, and satisfaction with the In Our DNA SC program, a population-based genomic screening initiative. We compared two consent procedures: standard consent (SC) involving a PDF document and enhanced consent (EC) incorporating a pictograph and true or false questions. Decision-making control, study knowledge, satisfaction, and time to consent were assessed. We analyzed data for 109 individuals who completed the SC and 96 who completed the EC. Results indicated strong decision-making control and high levels of knowledge and satisfaction in both groups. While no significant differences were found between the two groups, the EC experience took longer for participants to complete. Future modifications include incorporating video modules and launching a Spanish version of the consent experience. Overall, this study contributes to the growing literature on consent improvements and highlights the need to assess salient components and explore participant preferences for receiving consent information.

利用技术为大型研究项目增加覆盖面并优化同意体验。
对于潜在的参与者来说,研究的同意过程可能是繁重的,因为信息复杂,同意书冗长。这项实用的研究旨在改善同意体验,并评估其对参与者决策、研究知识和对In Our DNA SC计划满意度的影响,该计划是一项基于人群的基因组筛查计划。我们比较了两种同意程序:涉及PDF文件的标准同意(SC)和包含象形文字和真假问题的增强同意(EC)。评估决策控制、研究知识、满意度和同意时间。我们分析了109名完成SC和96名完成EC的人的数据。结果显示两组患者的决策控制能力强,知识水平和满意度均较高。虽然两组之间没有发现显著差异,但参与者完成EC体验所需的时间更长。未来的修改包括加入视频模块,并推出西班牙语版的同意体验。总的来说,这项研究有助于增加关于同意改进的文献,并强调需要评估重要组成部分并探索参与者对接收同意信息的偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
26.90%
发文量
437
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信