Rethinking informed consent in the time of COVID-19: An exploratory survey.
clinical research
digital technology
electronic informed consent
ethics
pandemic (COVID-19)
stakeholders
Journal
Frontiers in medicine
ISSN: 2296-858X
Titre abrégé: Front Med (Lausanne)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101648047
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
16
07
2022
accepted:
05
09
2022
entrez:
14
10
2022
pubmed:
15
10
2022
medline:
15
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Owing to the infectious nature of COVID-19, alternative solutions, such as electronic informed consent (eIC), needed to be implemented to inform research participants about study-related information and to obtain their consent. This study aimed to investigate stakeholders' experiences with alternative consenting methods as well as their views on any regulatory or legal guidelines for eIC implementation in clinical research. Results may serve as the cornerstone to rethink the informed consent process in clinical research. This study consisted of an online survey among three stakeholder groups across European Union (EU) Member States and the United Kingdom. The stakeholder groups included (i) investigators, (ii) data protection officers (DPOs) or legal experts working in the pharmaceutical industry, academia, and academic biobanks, and (iii) ethics committee (EC) members. Data collection occurred between April and December 2021. The data collected were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The online survey was completed by 191 respondents, of whom 52% were investigators. Respondents were active in 24 out of the 27 EU Member States and the United Kingdom. The majority of each stakeholder group considered validated electronic methods moderately or extremely useful to re-consent previously enrolled research participants upon study amendments or to obtain consent from COVID-19 patients. Nevertheless, this exploratory survey identified that only 13% of DPOs/legal experts, 26% of investigators, and 41% of EC members had experience with eIC. In addition, results suggest that the legal acceptance of eIC across EU Member States and the United Kingdom is variable and that a definition of eIC, issued by national law or policy, is rarely available. The results also showed that the COVID-19 pandemic brought additional challenges to inform participants and to obtain their consent; for example, related to travel restrictions. A number of alternative consenting methods were recommended, for example by the European Medicines Agency, to ensure clinical study continuation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although stakeholders support the use of eIC in clinical research, it seems that the experience with eIC is low. To harmonize eIC practices as much as possible, further investments in multi-stakeholder, multi-national guidance are needed.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Owing to the infectious nature of COVID-19, alternative solutions, such as electronic informed consent (eIC), needed to be implemented to inform research participants about study-related information and to obtain their consent. This study aimed to investigate stakeholders' experiences with alternative consenting methods as well as their views on any regulatory or legal guidelines for eIC implementation in clinical research. Results may serve as the cornerstone to rethink the informed consent process in clinical research.
Materials and methods
UNASSIGNED
This study consisted of an online survey among three stakeholder groups across European Union (EU) Member States and the United Kingdom. The stakeholder groups included (i) investigators, (ii) data protection officers (DPOs) or legal experts working in the pharmaceutical industry, academia, and academic biobanks, and (iii) ethics committee (EC) members. Data collection occurred between April and December 2021. The data collected were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The online survey was completed by 191 respondents, of whom 52% were investigators. Respondents were active in 24 out of the 27 EU Member States and the United Kingdom. The majority of each stakeholder group considered validated electronic methods moderately or extremely useful to re-consent previously enrolled research participants upon study amendments or to obtain consent from COVID-19 patients. Nevertheless, this exploratory survey identified that only 13% of DPOs/legal experts, 26% of investigators, and 41% of EC members had experience with eIC. In addition, results suggest that the legal acceptance of eIC across EU Member States and the United Kingdom is variable and that a definition of eIC, issued by national law or policy, is rarely available. The results also showed that the COVID-19 pandemic brought additional challenges to inform participants and to obtain their consent; for example, related to travel restrictions.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
A number of alternative consenting methods were recommended, for example by the European Medicines Agency, to ensure clinical study continuation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although stakeholders support the use of eIC in clinical research, it seems that the experience with eIC is low. To harmonize eIC practices as much as possible, further investments in multi-stakeholder, multi-national guidance are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36237540
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.995688
pmc: PMC9552958
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
995688Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 De Sutter, Lalova-Spinks, Borry, Valcke, Kindt, Negrouk, Verhenneman, Derèze, Storme and Huys.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Jul 31;22(1):108
pubmed: 34332572
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021 Jun;109(6):1517-1527
pubmed: 33666223
World J Clin Cases. 2020 Aug 6;8(15):3156-3163
pubmed: 32874970
JAMA. 2020 Jun 2;323(21):2135-2136
pubmed: 32211830
Eur J Health Law. 2020 Oct 21;27(5):425-450
pubmed: 33652387
NPJ Digit Med. 2020 Jul 31;3:101
pubmed: 32821856
Lancet. 2020 Aug 22;396(10250):523-524
pubmed: 32828180
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Feb 27;22(1):18
pubmed: 33639926
Mayo Clin Proc. 2021 Sep;96(9):2332-2341
pubmed: 34481597
Stroke. 2021 Apr;52(4):1527-1531
pubmed: 33588599
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Oct 8;22(10):e19129
pubmed: 33030440
Front Med (Lausanne). 2020 Dec 23;7:598038
pubmed: 33425945
Trials. 2020 Sep 11;21(1):784
pubmed: 32917258
JAMA. 2004 Oct 6;292(13):1593-601
pubmed: 15467062
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2020 Oct;19(10):662-663
pubmed: 32913212
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 May 09;(5):CD003717
pubmed: 24809816
JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191-4
pubmed: 24141714
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Nov 17;76(20):2368-2378
pubmed: 33183511
J Law Biosci. 2020 May 08;7(1):lsaa020
pubmed: 32728465
J Clin Transl Sci. 2021 Apr 07;5(1):e105
pubmed: 34192059
HRB Open Res. 2018 Mar 29;1:12
pubmed: 32002505
J Bioeth Inq. 2020 Dec;17(4):803-808
pubmed: 33169263