Evaluation of a group-based online informed consent conversation (eConsent) in participants from a low-risk vaccination clinical trial.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Trials Pub Date : 2024-08-07 DOI:10.1186/s13063-024-08367-4
Ngoc H Tan, Melvin Lafeber, Roos S G Sablerolles, Isabelle Veerman Roders, Anna van de Hoef, Karenin van Grafhorst, Leo G Visser, Douwe F Postma, Abraham Goorhuis, Wim J R Rietdijk, P Hugo M van der Kuy
{"title":"Evaluation of a group-based online informed consent conversation (eConsent) in participants from a low-risk vaccination clinical trial.","authors":"Ngoc H Tan, Melvin Lafeber, Roos S G Sablerolles, Isabelle Veerman Roders, Anna van de Hoef, Karenin van Grafhorst, Leo G Visser, Douwe F Postma, Abraham Goorhuis, Wim J R Rietdijk, P Hugo M van der Kuy","doi":"10.1186/s13063-024-08367-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Electronic informed consent (eConsent) usage has expanded in recent years in Europe, especially during the pandemic. Slow recruitment rate and limitations in participant outreach are the challenges often faced in clinical research. Given the benefits of eConsent and group counselling reported in the literature, group eConsent was implemented in recruitment for the SWITCH-ON study. We aim to explore the experience of participants who attended group eConsent for the SWITCH-ON study and evaluate its potential for future use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>SWITCH-ON study aims to analyse the immunogenicity of a healthy population following bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccination. Four hundred thirty-four healthcare workers aged 18-65 were successfully recruited and sent a questionnaire about their experience with group eConsent. Out of 399 completed questionnaires (response rate 92%), 39 participants did not join group eConsent. The remaining 360 responses were included in the final analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were reported using descriptive statistical analysis and thematic analysis respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants found that group eConsent was an efficient method that it allowed them to hear each other's questions and concerns and created a sense of togetherness. However, limited privacy, barriers to asking questions in a group, and peer pressure can limit the use of group eConsent. One hundred sixty-five (46%) participants thought that group eConsent was suitable to recruit participants with diseases or conditions, while 87 (24%) reported limitations with this method. The remaining participants suggested that applicability of group eConsent depended on the diseases or conditions of the study population, and one-to-one conversation should always be available. Participants who had experienced both one-to-one and group eConsent shared different preferred consent formats for future studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Group eConsent was positively evaluated by the participants of a low-risk vaccination study. Participants advised using webinars to provide general information about the study, followed by an individual session for each participant, would retain the benefits of group eConsent and minimise the limitations it posed. This proposed setting addresses privacy questions and makes group eConsent easier to implement.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05471440 (registered on 22nd of July, 2022).</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11304818/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08367-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Electronic informed consent (eConsent) usage has expanded in recent years in Europe, especially during the pandemic. Slow recruitment rate and limitations in participant outreach are the challenges often faced in clinical research. Given the benefits of eConsent and group counselling reported in the literature, group eConsent was implemented in recruitment for the SWITCH-ON study. We aim to explore the experience of participants who attended group eConsent for the SWITCH-ON study and evaluate its potential for future use.

Methods: SWITCH-ON study aims to analyse the immunogenicity of a healthy population following bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccination. Four hundred thirty-four healthcare workers aged 18-65 were successfully recruited and sent a questionnaire about their experience with group eConsent. Out of 399 completed questionnaires (response rate 92%), 39 participants did not join group eConsent. The remaining 360 responses were included in the final analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were reported using descriptive statistical analysis and thematic analysis respectively.

Results: Participants found that group eConsent was an efficient method that it allowed them to hear each other's questions and concerns and created a sense of togetherness. However, limited privacy, barriers to asking questions in a group, and peer pressure can limit the use of group eConsent. One hundred sixty-five (46%) participants thought that group eConsent was suitable to recruit participants with diseases or conditions, while 87 (24%) reported limitations with this method. The remaining participants suggested that applicability of group eConsent depended on the diseases or conditions of the study population, and one-to-one conversation should always be available. Participants who had experienced both one-to-one and group eConsent shared different preferred consent formats for future studies.

Conclusion: Group eConsent was positively evaluated by the participants of a low-risk vaccination study. Participants advised using webinars to provide general information about the study, followed by an individual session for each participant, would retain the benefits of group eConsent and minimise the limitations it posed. This proposed setting addresses privacy questions and makes group eConsent easier to implement.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05471440 (registered on 22nd of July, 2022).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在低风险疫苗接种临床试验参与者中评估基于小组的在线知情同意对话(eConsent)。
背景:近年来,电子知情同意书(eConsent)的使用范围在欧洲不断扩大,尤其是在大流行病期间。在临床研究中,招募速度慢和参与者外展方面的限制是经常面临的挑战。鉴于文献中报道的电子同意书和团体咨询的益处,SWITCH-ON 研究在招募时采用了团体电子同意书。我们旨在探讨参加 SWITCH-ON 研究小组电子同意的参与者的经验,并评估其在未来使用的潜力:SWITCH-ON 研究旨在分析健康人群接种二价 COVID-19 强化疫苗后的免疫原性。研究成功招募了 4344 名年龄在 18-65 岁之间的医护人员,并向他们发送了一份关于团体电子同意书使用经验的调查问卷。在 399 份填写完毕的问卷中(回复率为 92%),有 39 名参与者没有加入团体电子同意书。剩余的 360 份问卷被纳入最终分析。定量和定性数据分别通过描述性统计分析和主题分析进行报告:参与者发现,小组电子同意是一种有效的方法,它能让他们听到彼此的问题和担忧,并产生一种团结感。然而,有限的隐私、在小组中提问的障碍以及同伴压力都会限制小组电子同意的使用。有 165 名参与者(46%)认为,小组电子同意书适合招募患有疾病或病症的参与者,而有 87 名参与者(24%)表示这种方法存在局限性。其余的参与者认为,小组电子同意的适用性取决于研究人群的疾病或状况,而一对一谈话应始终可用。同时体验过一对一和集体电子同意的参与者在今后的研究中分享了不同的首选同意形式:一项低风险疫苗接种研究的参与者对集体电子同意书给予了积极评价。参与者建议使用网络研讨会来提供有关研究的一般信息,然后为每位参与者提供单独会话,这样既能保留集体电子同意的优点,又能最大限度地减少其局限性。这种建议的设置方式既能解决隐私问题,又能使集体电子同意更容易实施:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05471440(2022 年 7 月 22 日注册)。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Trials
Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
966
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that will encompass all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials. Trials will experiment with, and then refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these will be included). We believe this represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials. Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.
期刊最新文献
Chronic stress and functional health in older adults with concerns about falling: a study protocol of a randomized controlled trial with multicomponent exercise intervention (FEARFALL). High-frequency magnetic paired associated stimulation promotes motor function recovery in ischemic stroke patients: a study protocol for single-center, sham stimulation randomized controlled trials (H2MPAS) Effectiveness of long-term low-dose aspirin in the prevention of gastric cancer after Helicobacter pylori eradication: study design and rationale of Ardabil gastric cancer randomized placebo-controlled prevention trial (AGCPT) Implementing a pragmatic randomised controlled trial in a humanitarian setting: lessons learned from the TISA trial. Rapid normalization of vitamin D deficiency in PICU (VITdALIZE-KIDS): study protocol for a phase III, multicenter randomized controlled trial.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1