A randomized implementation trial to increase adoption of evidence-informed consent practices.

Introduction: Several evidence-informed consent practices (ECPs) have been shown to improve informed consent in clinical trials but are not routinely used. These include optimizing consent formatting, using plain language, using validated instruments to assess understanding, and involving legally authorized representatives when appropriate. We hypothesized that participants receiving an implementation science toolkit and a social media push would have increased adoption of ECPs and other outcomes. Methods: We conducted a 1-year trial with clinical research professionals in the USA (n = 1284) who have trials open to older adults or focus on Alzheimer's disease. We randomized participants to receive information on ECPs via receiving a toolkit with a social media push (intervention) or receiving an online learning module (active control). Participants completed a baseline survey and a follow-up survey after 1 year. A subset of participants was interviewed (n = 43). Results: Participants who engaged more with the toolkit were more likely to have tried to implement an ECP during the trial than participants less engaged with the toolkit or the active control group. However, there were no significant differences in the adoption of ECPs, intention to adopt, or positive attitudes. Participants reported the toolkit and social media push were satisfactory, and participating increased their awareness of ECPs. However, they reported lacking the time needed to engage with the toolkit more fully. Conclusions: Using an implementation science approach to increase the use of ECPs was only modestly successful. Data suggest that having institutional review boards recommend or require ECPs may be an effective way to increase their use.

Understanding the Use of Optimal Formatting and Plain Language When Presenting Key Information in Clinical Trials.

Recent revisions to the Common Rule require that consent documents begin with a focused presentation of the study's key information that is organized to facilitate understanding. We surveyed 1,284 researchers working with older adults or individuals with Alzheimer's disease, supplemented with 60 qualitative interviews, to understand current use and barriers to using evidence-based formatting and plain language in key information. Researchers reported using formatting in 42% of their key information sections, and plain language in 63% of their key information sections. Perceived barriers included lack of knowledge, Institutional Review Board, other members of their team, and the burden associated with implementation. Education and training are required to increase adoption of the practices.

Barriers and facilitators to qualitative data sharing in the United States: A survey of qualitative researchers.

Qualitative health data are rarely shared in the United States (U.S.). This is unfortunate because gathering qualitative data is labor and time-intensive, and data sharing enables secondary research, training, and transparency. A new U.S. federal policy mandates data sharing by 2023, and is agnostic to data type. We surveyed U.S. qualitative researchers (N = 425) on the barriers and facilitators of sharing qualitative health or sensitive research data. Most researchers (96%) have never shared qualitative data in a repository. Primary concerns were lack of participant permission to share data, data sensitivity, and breaching trust. Researcher willingness to share would increase if participants agreed and if sharing increased the societal impact of their research. Key resources to increase willingness to share were funding, guidance, and de-identification assistance. Public health and biomedical researchers were most willing to share. Qualitative researchers need to prepare for this new reality as sharing qualitative data requires unique considerations.

Perceived barriers to assessing understanding and appreciation of informed consent in clinical trials: A mixed-method study.

INTRODUCTION: Participants and research professionals often overestimate how well participants understand and appreciate consent information for clinical trials, and experts often vary in their determinations of participant's capacity to consent to research. Past research has developed and validated instruments designed to assess participant understanding and appreciation, but the frequency with which they are utilized is unknown. METHODS: We administered a survey to clinical researchers working with older adults or those at risk of cognitive impairment (N = 1284), supplemented by qualitative interviews (N = 60). RESULTS: We found that using a validated assessment of consent is relatively uncommon, being used by only 44% of researchers who had an opportunity. Factors that predicted adoption of validated assessments included not seeing the study sponsor as a barrier, positive attitudes toward assessments, and being confident that they had the resources needed to implement an assessment. The perceived barriers to adopting validated assessments of consent included lack of awareness, lack of knowledge, being unsure of how to administer such an assessment, and the burden associated with implementing this practice. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the use of validated assessments of consent will require educating researchers on the practice and emphasizing very practical assessments, and may require Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) or study sponsors to champion the use of assessments.

Attitudes toward genomics and precision medicine.

PURPOSE: This paper reports on a novel measure, attitudes toward genomics and precision medicine (AGPM), which evaluates attitudes toward activities such as genetic testing, collecting information on lifestyle, and genome editing - activities necessary to achieve the goals of precision medicine. DISCUSSION: The AGPM will be useful for researchers who want to explore attitudes toward genomics and precision medicine. The association of concerns about precision medicine activities with demographic variables such as religion and politics, as well as higher levels of education, suggests that further education on genomic and precision activities alone is unlikely to shift AGPM scores significantly. METHODS: We wrote items to represent psychological and health benefits of precision medicine activities, and concerns about privacy, social justice, harm to embryos, and interfering with nature. We validated the measure through factor analysis of its structure, and testing associations with trust in the health information system and demographic variables such as age, sex, education, and religion. RESULTS: The AGPM had excellent alpha reliability (.92) and demonstrated good convergent validity with existing measures. Variables most strongly associated with higher levels of concern with precision medicine activities included: regular religious practice, republican political leanings, and higher levels of education.