The informed consent process presents challenges for psychological trauma research (e.g. Institutional Review Board [IRB] apprehension). While previous research documents researcher and IRB-member perspectives on these challenges, participant views remain absent. Thus, using a mixed-methods approach, we investigated participant views on consent guidelines in two convenience samples: crowdsourced (N = 268) and undergraduate (N = 265) participants. We also examined whether trauma-exposure influenced participant views. Overall, participants were satisfied with current guidelines, providing minor feedback and ethical reminders for researchers. Moreover, (...) participant views for consent were similar irrespective of trauma-exposure. Our study has implications for IRBs and psychological researchers. (shrink)

Ethics in research can be broadly divided into two epistemic dimensions. One dimension focuses on bureaucratic procedures (i.e., procedural ethics), while the other focuses on contextually and culturally contested practice of ethics in research (i.e., ethics in practice). Researchers experience both dimensions distinctly in their qualitative research. The review of ethics in prospective research through bureaucratic procedures aims to measure compliance with documented requirements relating to research participants, data management, consent, and ensure researchers can demonstrate their ethical competence before they (...) commence their research. However, researchers often experience unanticipated ethical issues within the context of their research; sometimes ethics-related situations, including language sensitivity, cultural humility, and data processing experienced by researchers can be very different from what was included in bureaucratic procedures. In this study, phenomena related to research ethics in practice, as experienced by social scientists (n = 5) in their qualitative research, are hermeneutically explored and interpreted. The selected phenomena represent the researchers’ lived experiences regarding the practice of participant autonomy, specifically exploring participants’ right to withdraw from research. These phenomena are interpreted from the theoretical perspectives of situational relativism and self-determined autonomy. The interpreted phenomena reveal the current practices in ethical management of data collected from participants before their decision to withdraw from research (i.e., withdrawal data), are predominantly focused on tangible forms of data (i.e., the information that can easily be distinguished from other data), but ethical concerns associated with intangible forms of data are often neglected. The intangible forms of data are experiential knowing and understanding that include, feeling, emotion, courage, respect, celebration, anger, and the sense of being and belonging. The study recommends that researchers and research professionals should exercise ethical sensitivity and humility towards intangible forms of data collected during qualitative research when participants withdraw their consent. (shrink)

The informed consent is an ethical and legal requirement for potential participants to enroll in a study. There is ample of evidence that understanding consent information and enrollment is challenging for participants in clinical trials. On the other hand, the reasoning process behind decision-making in HIV clinical trials remains mostly unexplored. This study aims to examine the decision-making process of people living with HIV currently participating in antiretroviral clinical trials and their understanding of informed consent. We conducted a qualitative socio-constructivist (...) study using semi-structured interviews. Eleven participants were selected by purposive sampling in Argentina until data saturation was reached. A content analysis was performed. The findings highlight the fact that some participants decided to enroll on the spot, while others made the decision a few days later. In all cases, the decision was based on different aspects of trust (in doctors, in the clinical research site, in the clinical trials system) but also on emotions associated with HIV and/or treatment. Moreover, while people living with HIV felt truly informed after the consent dialogue with a researcher, consent forms were unintelligible and unfriendly. The immediacy of patient decision-making has rarely been described before. Enrollment in an HIV clinical trial is mainly a trust-based decision but this does not contradict the ethical values of autonomy, voluntariness, non-manipulation, and non‐exploitation. Thus, trust is a key issue to be included in reshaping professional practices to ensure the integrity of the informed consent process. (shrink)

Consent is one necessary foundation for ethical research and it’s one of the research ethics committee’s major roles to ensure that the consent process meets acceptable standards. Although on Oxford ‘A’ REC (an NHS Research Ethics Committee based in the UK) we’ve been impressed by the thought and work put into this aspect of research ethics, we’ve continued to have concerns about the suitability and effectiveness of consent processes in supporting decision making, particularly for clinical trials. There’s poor understanding of (...) what people want to help them decide; current processes don’t provide the best grounding for informed consent and there’s inadequate public involvement. We’ve also found a lack of proportionality with researchers failing to adapt consent procedures in proportion to the burdens and consequences of the study. As a result, people are often not best helped to make an informed choice when asked to join a research study. To address these concerns, we considered how we might improve this aspect of research ethics review. Recognising the central importance of the dialogue between the volunteer and researcher, we’ve drawn up a model or flowchart of what we deem good consent practice, proposing consent should be built around four simple steps: Step 1: Introducing the study and the choices: helping the potential participants get an overview of the proposal and introducing the key issues. Step 2: Explaining all the details of the study using the detailed Participant Information Sheet. Step 3: After a gap, if necessary, reviewing and checking understanding. Step 4: Reaching agreement and recording consent. These steps, we believe, could help all involved and this article lays out ways we might improve participant choice while complying with accepted principles and current regulations. (shrink)