Details of risk-benefit communication in informed consent documents for phase I/II trials.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent documents for clinical studies should disclose all reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits. Little guidance exists on how to navigate the complexities of risk-benefit communication, especially in early clinical research. Practice-oriented development of such guidance should be informed by evidence on what and how details of risks and benefits are currently communicated. METHOD: We surveyed the responsible parties of phase I/II trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov that started 2007 or later and completed between 2012 and 2016 to sample informed consent documents from a broad spectrum of early phase clinical trials. Based on an assessment matrix, we qualitatively and quantitatively assessed the informed consent documents for details of risk-benefit communication. RESULTS: The risk-benefit communication in the 172 informed consent documents differed substantially in several regards. The outcome, extent, and likelihood of health risks, for example, were described in 83%, 32%, and 63% of the informed consent documents. Only 45% of informed consent documents specified the outcome of mentioned health benefits, and the extent and likelihood of health benefits were never specified. From those informed consent documents reporting risk likelihoods, only 57% added frequency numbers to words such as "common" or "rare," and even in these cases, we found strong variations for presented frequency ranges. Substantial heterogeneity also exists for how informed consent documents communicate other risk and benefit types and related safeguards. CONCLUSION: Our study points to several shortcomings and heterogeneities in how informed consent documents communicate risks and benefits to potential research participants. Health risks, for example, should be specified with frequency numbers, and health benefits should be specified at least by mentioning their outcomes. Further demand for research and policy development is needed to harmonize risk-benefit communication and to clarify ways to specify the likelihood of health benefits.

[Ethics University on Regenerative Medicine - As an Instrument for the Development of Valid Public Opinions?] / Ethik-Universität zur Regenerativen Medizin ­ ein Instrument der fundierten Meinungsbildung für Laien?

OBJECTIVES: In 2016, we invited interested citizens to participate in the "ethics university on regenerative medicine" at Hannover Medical School. The present study analyses if and how this discursive and informative event inspired participants to form their own opinion on the issues at hand and to develop their general ethics literacy. METHODS: The "ethics university" was performed twice in 2016; each run consisted of four single consecutive events. Lectures were combined with interactive learning stations, and group discussions. Opinions and information level of all participants were surveyed by means of a postal questionnaire before and after the course to detect any changes of opinions and information levels; additionally, we surveyed participants' self-assessment. Participants of the second run were asked to form a waiting list control group to compare results from first run-participants. Furthermore, we conducted a content analysis of group discussions during the ethics university. RESULTS: Of 168 participants of both runs, 101 took part in the pre/post-survey. In addition, 30 questionnaires of the waiting list control group were analysed. Participants showed a higher level of information after the ethics university (changes between 0.75 and 1.93 points on a five-point scale). Between 50.5 and 66.0% of participants indicated that their opinion on different issues had become either more affirmative or more disapprobative as a result of attending the ethics university. On average, opinions were more positive after participation (between 0.44 and 1.0 points on a 5-point scale). Respondents in the waiting list control group showed no changes in opinion or information level. Participants themselves felt that they formed their opinions mainly on the basis of information they received in lectures, conversations with experts, interactive learning sessions, and written information. However, for many participants, interacting with other participants in the group discussions, as well as reflecting their own views was an important to forming informed opinions. CONCLUSION: Results of the evaluation show that participants were inspired to form their own opinions by the ethics university and to develop their ethics literacy (e. g. ability to reflect on normative questions). For future ethics universities, the group of participants should be as diverse as possible. In addition, interactive and discursive elements should be given a higher priority.

The Public's Awareness of and Attitude Toward Research Biobanks - A Regional German Survey.

Background: Biobanks have become an increasingly important means of biomedical research and innovation. However, they entail a variety of ethical, social and legal challenges, which need to be publicly discussed and managed collectively. A certain level of public awareness of biobank research is an important prerequisite for the public to form an opinion on the issue at hand and to be willing to participate in public engagement activities. For many countries, including Germany, recent information on the public's awareness of and attitude toward biobanks is scarce. Methods: Therefore, by means of a postal survey in a German urban region, this study updates data from the 2010 Eurobarometer by analyzing (1) the public's awareness of biobanks, (2) their general attitude toward biobanks, and (3) their hypothetical willingness to donate their own biological samples and personal or medical data. Results: Overall, 204 (20.4%) of 998 delivered questionnaires were returned. The majority of survey respondents stated a positive attitude toward medical research (95.5%) and - to a somewhat lower degree - toward genetic research (61.3%). Attitudes toward biobanks were mixed but positive for the majority of respondents: in a question about their spontaneous assessment of biobanks as a means for medical research, 77% showed positive attitudes toward biobanks (36.6% "definitely" and 40.5% "somewhat positive"). This finding is also reflected in a high proportion of individuals willing to participate in biobank research: 70.4% of respondents would be willing to donate biomaterial to a biobank during a hypothetical stay in hospital. In spite of the high overall support respondents show for biobanks (e.g., positive general attitude and willingness to participate), only about one third (30.8%) had previously heard of biobanks. Discussion and Conclusion: The comparison of survey results with prior data from the 2010 Eurobarometer indicates that public awareness of biobanks remains low. A higher level of biobank awareness can be assumed to be one prerequisite for public engagement in future decisions on biobank governance. We therefore argue that to increase public awareness of biobanks and to enable public involvement in biobank governance, publicly available and understandable information must be provided and disseminated.

Participatory improvement of a template for informed consent documents in biobank research - study results and methodological reflections.

BACKGROUND: For valid informed consent, it is crucial that patients or research participants fully understand all that their consent entails. Testing and revising informed consent documents with the assistance of their addressees can improve their understandability. In this study we aimed at further developing a method for testing and improving informed consent documents with regard to readability and test-readers' understanding and reactions. METHODS: We tested, revised, and retested template informed consent documents for biobank research by means of 11 focus group interviews with members from the documents' target population. For the analysis of focus group excerpts we used qualitative content analysis. Revisions were made based on focus group feedback in an iterative process. RESULTS: Focus group participants gave substantial feedback on the original and on the revised version of the tested documents. Revisions included adding and clarifying explanations, including an info-box summarizing the main points of the text and an illustrative graphic. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate positive effects on the tested and revised informed consent documents in regard to general readability and test-readers' understanding and reactions. Participatory methods for improving informed consent should be more often applied and further evaluated for both, medical interventions and clinical research. Particular conceptual and methodological challenges need to be addressed in the future.

An integrated conceptual framework for evaluating and improving 'understanding' in informed consent.

BACKGROUND: The development of understandable informed consent (IC) documents has proven to be one of the most important challenges in research with humans as well as in healthcare settings. Therefore, evaluating and improving understanding has been of increasing interest for empirical research on IC. However, several conceptual and practical challenges for the development of understandable IC documents remain unresolved. METHODS: In this paper, we will outline and systematize some of these challenges. On the basis of our own experiences in empirical user testing of IC documents as well as the relevant literature on understanding in IC, we propose an integrated conceptual model for the development of understandable IC documents. RESULTS: The proposed conceptual model integrates different methods for the participatory improvement of written information, including IC, as well as quantitative methods for measuring understanding in IC. CONCLUSIONS: In most IC processes, understandable written information is an important prerequisite for valid IC. To improve the quality of IC documents, a conceptual model for participatory procedures of testing, revising, and retesting can be applied. However, the model presented in this paper needs further theoretical and empirical elaboration and clarification of several conceptual and practical challenges.

Do Public Involvement Activities in Biomedical Research and Innovation Recruit Representatively? A Systematic Qualitative Review.

BACKGROUND: Public involvement activities (PIAs) may contribute to the governance of ethically challenging biomedical research and innovation by informing, consulting with and engaging the public in developments and decision-making processes. For PIAs to capture a population's preferences (e.g. on issues in whole genome sequencing, biobanks or genome editing), a central methodological requirement is to involve a sufficiently representative subgroup of the general public. While the existing literature focusses on theoretical and normative aspects of 'representation', this study assesses empirically how such considerations are implemented in practice. It evaluates how PIA reports describe representation objectives, the recruitment process and levels of representation achieved. METHODS: PIA reports were included from a systematic literature search if they directly reported a PIA conducted in a relevant discipline such as genomics, biobanks, biotechnology or others. PIA reports were analyzed with thematic text analysis. The text analysis was guided by an assessment matrix based on PIA-specific guidelines and frameworks. RESULTS: We included 46 relevant reports, most focusing on issues in genomics. 27 reports (59%) explicitly described representation objectives, though mostly without adjusting eligibility criteria and recruiting methods to the specific objective. 11 reports (24%) explicitly reported to have achieved the intended representation; the rest either reported failure or were silent on this issue. CONCLUSION: Representation of study samples in PIAs in biomedical research and innovation is currently not reported systematically. Improved reporting on representation would not only improve the validity and value of PIAs, but could also contribute to PIA results being used more often in relevant policy and decision-making processes.

Collective agency and the concept of 'public' in public involvement: A practice-oriented analysis.

BACKGROUND: Public involvement activities are promoted as measures for ensuring good governance in challenging fields, such as biomedical research and innovation. Proponents of public involvement activities include individual researchers as well as non-governmental and governmental organizations. However, the concept of 'public' in public involvement deserves more attention by researchers because it is not purely theoretical: it has important practical functions in the guidance, evaluation and translation of public involvement activities. DISCUSSION: This article focuses on collective agency as one property a public as a small group of participants in a public involvement activity could exhibit. It introduces a prominent theoretical approach to collective agents as one specific kind of social entities and demonstrates how this approach can be applied to current practice in public involvement activities. A brief discussion of different types of representation as they are used in the existing literature on this topic is also included because representation and collective agency can be closely related to each other. Suggestions and ideas that are derived from this reasoning include the proposal to use a 'validity check' for the generation of collective agents as a regular element of certain types of public involvement activities, the consequences of combining collective agency and representativeness as a further property a public could exhibit, and standards for reporting the content of public involvement activities in scientific publications. This article discusses the importance of the concept of 'public' in public involvement activities, with a focus on biomedical research and innovation. It introduces various practically relevant ideas that are based on a theoretical analysis of collective agency as an important property a public can possess.