Comparative Effectiveness of eConsent: Systematic Review
- PMID: 37656499
- PMCID: PMC10504628
- DOI: 10.2196/43883
Comparative Effectiveness of eConsent: Systematic Review
Abstract
Background: Providing informed consent means agreeing to participate in a clinical trial and having understood what is involved. Flawed informed consent processes, including missing dates and signatures, are common regulatory audit findings. Electronic consent (eConsent) uses digital technologies to enable the consenting process. It aims to improve participant comprehension and engagement with study information and to address data quality concerns.
Objective: This systematic literature review aimed to assess the effectiveness of eConsent in terms of patient comprehension, acceptability, usability, and study enrollment and retention rates, as well as the effects of eConsent on the time patients took to perform the consenting process ("cycle time") and on-site workload in comparison with traditional paper-based consenting.
Methods: The systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Ovid Embase and Ovid MEDLINE were systematically searched for publications reporting original, comparative data on the effectiveness of eConsent in terms of patient comprehension, acceptability, usability, enrollment and retention rates, cycle time, and site workload. The methodological validity of the studies that compared outcomes for comprehension, acceptability, and usability across paper consent and eConsent was assessed. Study methodologies were categorized as having "high" validity if comprehensive assessments were performed using established instruments.
Results: Overall, 37 publications describing 35 studies (13,281 participants) were included. All studies comparing eConsenting and paper-based consenting for comprehension (20/35, 57% of the studies; 10 with "high" validity), acceptability (8/35, 23% of the studies; 1 with "high" validity), and usability (5/35, 14% of the studies; 1 with "high" validity) reported significantly better results with eConsent, better results but without significance testing, or no significant differences in overall results. None of the studies reported better results with paper than with eConsent. Among the "high" validity studies, 6 studies on comprehension reported significantly better understanding of at least some concepts, the study on acceptability reported statistically significant higher satisfaction scores, and the study on usability reported statistically significant higher usability scores with eConsent than with paper (P<.05 for all). Cycle times were increased with eConsent, potentially reflecting greater patient engagement with the content. Data on enrollment and retention were limited. Comparative data from site staff and other study researchers indicated the potential for reduced workload and lower administrative burden with eConsent.
Conclusions: This systematic review showed that compared with patients using paper-based consenting, patients using eConsent had a better understanding of the clinical trial information, showed greater engagement with content, and rated the consenting process as more acceptable and usable. eConsent solutions thus have the potential to enhance understanding, acceptability, and usability of the consenting process while inherently being able to address data quality concerns, including those related to flawed consenting processes.
Keywords: acceptability; clinical trial; comprehension; digital consent; eConsent; effectiveness; electronic consent; informed consent form; patient engagement; usability.
©Edwin Cohen, Bill Byrom, Anja Becher, Magnus Jörntén-Karlsson, Andrew K Mackenzie. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 01.09.2023.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of Interest: EC is an employee at AstraZeneca. BB is an employee at Signant Health. AB is a contractor at Oxford PharmaGenesis. MJ-K is an employee and shareholder at AstraZeneca. AKM has no conflicts of interest to declare.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Electronic informed consent criteria for research ethics review: a scoping review.BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Nov 21;23(1):117. doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00849-x. BMC Med Ethics. 2022. PMID: 36414962 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36321557 Free PMC article.
-
Electronic consenting for conducting research remotely: A review of current practice and key recommendations for using e-consenting.Int J Med Inform. 2020 Nov;143:104271. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104271. Epub 2020 Sep 13. Int J Med Inform. 2020. PMID: 32979650 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Formative Evaluation of Participant Experience With Mobile eConsent in the App-Mediated Parkinson mPower Study: A Mixed Methods Study.JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Feb 16;5(2):e14. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.6521. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017. PMID: 28209557 Free PMC article.
-
The effectiveness of health literacy interventions on the informed consent process of health care users: a systematic review protocol.JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Oct;13(10):82-94. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2304. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015. PMID: 26571285
Cited by
-
Participant comprehension and acceptability of enhanced versus text-only electronic informed consent: an innovative qualitative pilot study.Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2024 Jan 17;10(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s40814-023-01432-w. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2024. PMID: 38233932 Free PMC article.
References
-
- E6(R2) Good clinical practice: integrated addendum to ICH E6(R1) U.S. Food & Drug Administration. 2018. Mar, [2022-06-23]. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents... .
-
- Schumacher A, Sikov WM, Quesenberry MI, Safran H, Khurshid H, Mitchell KM, Olszewski AJ. Informed consent in oncology clinical trials: a Brown University Oncology Research Group prospective cross-sectional pilot study. PLoS One. 2017 Feb 24;12(2):e0172957. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172957. https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172957 PONE-D-16-34815 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Retention in clinical trials: keeping patients on protocols. Advarra. 2021. Mar 23, [2022-06-23]. https://www.advarra.com/resource-library/retention-in-clinical-trials-ke...
-
- Rogers CA, Ahearn JD, Bartlett MG. Data integrity in the pharmaceutical industry: analysis of inspections and warning letters issued by the bioresearch monitoring program between fiscal years 2007-2018. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020 Sep 24;54(5):1123–33. doi: 10.1007/s43441-020-00129-z. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32096103 10.1007/s43441-020-00129-z - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources