Background. Informed consent (IC) is not only a regulatory but also an ethical requirement to participate in any clinical trial. It is essential to determine that research participants understand what they consent to. Studies that evaluate participants’ understanding of IC conclude that recall and understanding of IC is often low, and researchers recommend that interactive multimedia interventions should be implemented to optimise understanding. Objectives. To assess participants’ understanding of IC of the research trial that they agreed to participate in.Methods. A (...) descriptive survey design, within a quantitative research approach, was used to conduct the study at two government hospitals in the Eastern Cape Province. A semi-structured, self-administered questionnaire was used to collect information from 170 participants in research studies. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the results.Results. Participants were recruited from among women who enrolled in any of the three studies that were ongoing at the two sites during the recruitment period. The study participants had a mean age of 25.9 years. Nearly one-third (30%) could not recall the purpose of the original trial that they consented to. The concept of randomisation was not understood by any of the participants.Conclusion. Regardless of extensive efforts to ensure that participants understood their participation, this study unveiled poor recall of essential information on IC. It is proposed that IC should be short and only address essential components such as purpose, procedure, possible risks or benefits, alternative options if not participating and explaining the concept of voluntary participation. (shrink)

BackgroundThe H2020 i-CONSENT project has developed a set of guidelines that offer ethical recommendations and practical tools aimed at making the informed consent process in clinical studies more comprehensive, tailored, and inclusive. An analysis of the appropriateness of some of its novel recommendations was carried out by a group of experts representing different stakeholders.MethodsAn adaptation of the RAND/ucla Appropriateness Method was used to assess the level of agreement on the recommendations among 14 representatives of different stakeholders, including patients, regulators, investigators, (...) ethics experts, and the pharmaceutical industry. The process included two rounds of rating and a virtual meeting.ResultsFifty-three recommendations were evaluated. After the first round, 34 recommendations were judged “appropriate”; 19 were judged “uncertain”; and none was judged “inappropriate”. After the second round, 9 “uncertains” changed to “appropriate”. All recommendations rated medians of 6.5–9 on a 1–9 scale (1 = “extremely inappropriate”, 5 = “uncertain”, 9 = “extremely appropriate”). The sections “General recommendations” and “Gender perspective during the consent process for clinical studies” showed the highest “uncertainty” rating. The four keys to improving the understanding of the ICP in clinical studies are to: (1) consider consent a two-way continuous interaction that begins at the first contact with the potential participant and continues until the end of the study; (2) improve investigators’ communication skills; (3) co-create the information; and (4) use a layered approach, including information to compensate for the potential participant’s possible lack of health literacy and a glossary of terms.ConclusionsThe RAND/ucla method has demonstrated validity for assessing the appropriateness of recommendations in ethical guidelines. The recommendations of the i-CONSENT guidelines were mostly judged “appropriate” by all stakeholders involved in the informed consent process. (shrink)