Informing a European guidance framework on electronic informed consent in clinical research: a qualitative study.

Clinical research Digital technology Europe Guideline Implementation Informed consent Regulatory guidance Stakeholders Trial

Journal

BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
21 Feb 2023
Historique:
received: 19 10 2022
accepted: 13 02 2023
entrez: 22 2 2023
pubmed: 23 2 2023
medline: 25 2 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Electronic informed consent (eIC) may offer various advantages compared to paper-based informed consent. However, the regulatory and legal landscape related to eIC provides a diffuse image. By drawing from the perspectives of key stakeholders in the field, this study aims to inform the creation of a European guidance framework on eIC in clinical research. Focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 participants from six stakeholder groups. The stakeholder groups included representatives of ethics committees, data infrastructure organizations, patient organizations, and the pharmaceutical industry as well as investigators and regulators. All were involved in or knowledgeable about clinical research and were active in one of the European Union Member States or at a pan-European or global level. The framework method was used for data analysis. Stakeholders underwrote the need for a multi-stakeholder guidance framework addressing practical elements related to eIC. According to the stakeholders, a European guidance framework should describe consistent requirements and procedures for implementing eIC on a pan-European level. Generally, stakeholders agreed with the definitions of eIC issued by the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration. Nevertheless, it was raised that, in a European guidance framework, it should be emphasized that eIC aims to support rather than replace the personal interaction between research participants and the research team. In addition, it was believed that a European guidance framework should include details on the legality of eIC across European Union Member States and the responsibilities of an ethics committee in the eIC assessment process. Although stakeholders supported the idea to include detailed information on the type of eIC-related materials to be submitted to an ethics committee, opinions varied on this regard. The creation of a European guidance framework is a much needed factor to advance eIC implementation in clinical research. By collecting the views of multiple stakeholder groups, this study advances recommendations that may facilitate the development of such a framework. Particular consideration should go to harmonizing requirements and providing practical details related to eIC implementation on a European Union-wide level.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Electronic informed consent (eIC) may offer various advantages compared to paper-based informed consent. However, the regulatory and legal landscape related to eIC provides a diffuse image. By drawing from the perspectives of key stakeholders in the field, this study aims to inform the creation of a European guidance framework on eIC in clinical research.
METHODS METHODS
Focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 participants from six stakeholder groups. The stakeholder groups included representatives of ethics committees, data infrastructure organizations, patient organizations, and the pharmaceutical industry as well as investigators and regulators. All were involved in or knowledgeable about clinical research and were active in one of the European Union Member States or at a pan-European or global level. The framework method was used for data analysis.
RESULTS RESULTS
Stakeholders underwrote the need for a multi-stakeholder guidance framework addressing practical elements related to eIC. According to the stakeholders, a European guidance framework should describe consistent requirements and procedures for implementing eIC on a pan-European level. Generally, stakeholders agreed with the definitions of eIC issued by the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration. Nevertheless, it was raised that, in a European guidance framework, it should be emphasized that eIC aims to support rather than replace the personal interaction between research participants and the research team. In addition, it was believed that a European guidance framework should include details on the legality of eIC across European Union Member States and the responsibilities of an ethics committee in the eIC assessment process. Although stakeholders supported the idea to include detailed information on the type of eIC-related materials to be submitted to an ethics committee, opinions varied on this regard.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
The creation of a European guidance framework is a much needed factor to advance eIC implementation in clinical research. By collecting the views of multiple stakeholder groups, this study advances recommendations that may facilitate the development of such a framework. Particular consideration should go to harmonizing requirements and providing practical details related to eIC implementation on a European Union-wide level.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36810088
doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09173-5
pii: 10.1186/s12913-023-09173-5
pmc: PMC9942635
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

181

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Jul 31;22(1):108
pubmed: 34332572
Can Fam Physician. 2009 Feb;55(2):218-9
pubmed: 19221085
Ethics Hum Res. 2022 Jul;44(4):39-44
pubmed: 35802791
Trials. 2019 Sep 18;20(1):572
pubmed: 31533793
Trials. 2022 May 12;23(1):388
pubmed: 35550639
Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2016 Mar 14;3:2333393616630466
pubmed: 28462326
Clin Trials. 2019 Apr;16(2):183-193
pubmed: 30628466
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Oct 8;22(10):e19129
pubmed: 33030440
Digit Health. 2022 Jun 26;8:20552076221109068
pubmed: 35783466
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2022 Aug;112(2):344-352
pubmed: 35488483
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 May 25;9:906448
pubmed: 35692551

Auteurs

Evelien De Sutter (E)

Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. evelien.desutter@kuleuven.be.

Pascal Borry (P)

Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Isabelle Huys (I)

Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Liese Barbier (L)

Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH