Digital tools in the informed consent process: a systematic review.
Digital tools
Informed consent
Innovation
Multimedia
RCT
Systematic review
Video
Journal
BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 02 2021
27 02 2021
Historique:
received:
04
06
2019
accepted:
15
02
2021
entrez:
28
2
2021
pubmed:
1
3
2021
medline:
29
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Providing understandable information to patients is necessary to achieve the aims of the Informed Consent process: respecting and promoting patients' autonomy and protecting patients from harm. In recent decades, new, primarily digital technologies have been used to apply and test innovative formats of Informed Consent. We conducted a systematic review to explore the impact of using digital tools for Informed Consent in both clinical research and in clinical practice. Understanding, satisfaction and participation were compared for digital tools versus the non-digital Informed Consent process. We searched for studies on available electronic databases, including Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane. Studies were identified using specific Mesh-terms/keywords. We included studies, published from January 2012 to October 2020, that focused on the use of digital Informed Consent tools for clinical research, or clinical procedures. Digital interventions were defined as interventions that used multimedia or audio-video to provide information to patients. We classified the interventions into 3 different categories: video only, non-interactive multimedia, and interactive multimedia. Our search yielded 19,579 publications. After title and abstract screening 100 studies were retained for full-text analysis, of which 73 publications were included. Studies examined interactive multimedia (29/73), non-interactive multimedia (13/73), and videos (31/73), and most (34/38) studies were conducted on adults. Innovations in consent were tested for clinical/surgical procedures (26/38) and clinical research (12/38). For research IC, 21 outcomes were explored, with a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes being observed in 8/12 studies. For clinical/surgical procedures 49 outcomes were explored, and 21/26 studies reported a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes. Digital technologies for informed consent were not found to negatively affect any of the outcomes, and overall, multimedia tools seem desirable. Multimedia tools indicated a higher impact than videos only. Presence of a researcher may potentially enhance efficacy of different outcomes in research IC processes. Studies were heterogeneous in design, making evaluation of impact challenging. Robust study design including standardization is needed to conclusively assess impact.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Providing understandable information to patients is necessary to achieve the aims of the Informed Consent process: respecting and promoting patients' autonomy and protecting patients from harm. In recent decades, new, primarily digital technologies have been used to apply and test innovative formats of Informed Consent. We conducted a systematic review to explore the impact of using digital tools for Informed Consent in both clinical research and in clinical practice. Understanding, satisfaction and participation were compared for digital tools versus the non-digital Informed Consent process.
METHODS
We searched for studies on available electronic databases, including Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane. Studies were identified using specific Mesh-terms/keywords. We included studies, published from January 2012 to October 2020, that focused on the use of digital Informed Consent tools for clinical research, or clinical procedures. Digital interventions were defined as interventions that used multimedia or audio-video to provide information to patients. We classified the interventions into 3 different categories: video only, non-interactive multimedia, and interactive multimedia.
RESULTS
Our search yielded 19,579 publications. After title and abstract screening 100 studies were retained for full-text analysis, of which 73 publications were included. Studies examined interactive multimedia (29/73), non-interactive multimedia (13/73), and videos (31/73), and most (34/38) studies were conducted on adults. Innovations in consent were tested for clinical/surgical procedures (26/38) and clinical research (12/38). For research IC, 21 outcomes were explored, with a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes being observed in 8/12 studies. For clinical/surgical procedures 49 outcomes were explored, and 21/26 studies reported a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Digital technologies for informed consent were not found to negatively affect any of the outcomes, and overall, multimedia tools seem desirable. Multimedia tools indicated a higher impact than videos only. Presence of a researcher may potentially enhance efficacy of different outcomes in research IC processes. Studies were heterogeneous in design, making evaluation of impact challenging. Robust study design including standardization is needed to conclusively assess impact.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33639926
doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00585-8
pii: 10.1186/s12910-021-00585-8
pmc: PMC7913441
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
18Subventions
Organisme : European Commission Horizon 2020 SwafS-17-2016
ID : 741856
Références
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 1999 Jun;8(2):83-6
pubmed: 10476110
BMJ Open. 2020 Jul 26;10(7):e036977
pubmed: 32713850
Genet Med. 2016 Jan;18(1):57-64
pubmed: 25834945
J Med Ethics. 2012 Jun;38(6):356-65
pubmed: 22313664
IRB. 2004 Mar-Apr;26(2):1-8
pubmed: 15069970
Patient Educ Couns. 2004 May;53(2):205-16
pubmed: 15140461
AMA J Ethics. 2016 Sep 01;18(9):869-86
pubmed: 27669132
J R Soc Med. 2005 Aug;98(8):354-6
pubmed: 16055899
JAMA. 2018 Aug 28;320(8):742-744
pubmed: 30090925
New Media Soc. 2019 Feb;21(2):354-375
pubmed: 30886536
N Engl J Med. 2003 Feb 20;348(8):721-6
pubmed: 12594317
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2700
pubmed: 19622552
Lancet. 2004 Aug 28-Sep 3;364(9436):803-11
pubmed: 15337409
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jul 10;30(20):2516-21
pubmed: 22614993
Am J Surg. 2009 Sep;198(3):420-35
pubmed: 19716887
JAMA. 2004 Oct 6;292(13):1593-601
pubmed: 15467062
Health Policy Plan. 2016 Nov;31(9):1310-25
pubmed: 27185528
Contemp Clin Trials. 2013 Sep;36(1):25-31
pubmed: 23747986
BMC Med Ethics. 2013 Jul 23;14:28
pubmed: 23879694
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Dec 20;18(1):78
pubmed: 29262814
Bull World Health Organ. 2015 May 1;93(5):320-328A
pubmed: 26229203
Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(4):373-4
pubmed: 11357217
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Mar 21;17(1):29
pubmed: 28327125
Lancet Oncol. 2008 May;9(5):485-93
pubmed: 18452859
BMJ. 2017 Feb 3;356:j463
pubmed: 28159769
Med Care. 2012 Apr;50(4):277-82
pubmed: 22411440
Bull World Health Organ. 2015 Mar 1;93(3):186-98H
pubmed: 25883410
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Mar 06;19(3):e64
pubmed: 28264794
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2000 Mar-Apr;7(2):177-85
pubmed: 10730601
Front Pediatr. 2021 Jan 12;8:520803
pubmed: 33511090
Am J Psychiatry. 2001 Nov;158(11):1911-3
pubmed: 11691700
Clin Med (Lond). 2004 May-Jun;4(3):269-76
pubmed: 15244364
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jan 23;(1):CD003717
pubmed: 18254029
Am J Public Health. 2018 Jan;108(1):42-46
pubmed: 29161060
Cancer. 2012 Apr 1;118(7):1877-83
pubmed: 22009665
Annu Rev Public Health. 2004;25:497-519
pubmed: 15015932