Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Study protocol

Evaluation of interventions for informed consent for randomised controlled trials (ELICIT): protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey

Authors: Katie Gillies, Vikki Entwistle, Shaun P. Treweek, Cynthia Fraser, Paula R. Williamson, Marion K. Campbell

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The process of obtaining informed consent for participation in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was established as a mechanism to protect participants against undue harm from research and allow people to recognise any potential risks or benefits associated with the research. A number of interventions have been put forward to improve this process. Outcomes reported in trials of interventions to improve the informed consent process for decisions about trial participation tend to focus on the ‘understanding’ of trial information. However, the operationalization of understanding as a concept, the tools used to measure it and the timing of the measurements are heterogeneous. A lack of clarity exists regarding which outcomes matter (to whom) and why. This inconsistency between studies results in difficulties when making comparisons across studies as evidenced in two recent systematic reviews of informed consent interventions. As such, no optimal method for measuring the impact of these interventions aimed at improving informed consent for RCTs has been identified.

Methods/Design

The project will adopt and adapt methodology previously developed and used in projects developing core outcome sets for assessment of clinical treatments. Specifically, the work will consist of three stages: 1) A systematic methodology review of existing outcome measures of trial informed consent interventions; 2) Interviews with key stakeholders to explore additional outcomes relevant for trial participation decisions; and 3) A Delphi study to refine the core outcome set for evaluation of trial informed consent interventions. All stages will include the stakeholders involved in the various aspects of RCT consent: users (that is, patients), developers (that is, trialists), deliverers (focusing on research nurses) and authorisers (that is, ethics committees). A final consensus meeting including all stakeholders will be held to review outcomes.

Discussion

The ELICIT study aims to develop a core outcome set for the evaluation of interventions intended to improve informed consent for RCTs for use in future RCTs and reviews, thereby improving the reliability and consistency of research in this area.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH). ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R1). Geneva: ICH; 1996 [Step 4 version]. International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH). ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R1). Geneva: ICH; 1996 [Step 4 version].
3.
go back to reference Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2000;6:1593–601. Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2000;6:1593–601.
4.
go back to reference Nishimura A, Carey J, Erwin PJ, Tilburt JC, Murad MH, McCormick JB. Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14:28.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nishimura A, Carey J, Erwin PJ, Tilburt JC, Murad MH, McCormick JB. Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14:28.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Prescott RJ, Counsell CE, Gillespie WJ, Grant AM, Russell IT, Kiauka S, et al. Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:1–143.PubMed Prescott RJ, Counsell CE, Gillespie WJ, Grant AM, Russell IT, Kiauka S, et al. Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:1–143.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M, Brindle L, Jacoby A, Peters T, et al. Quality improvement report: improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult. BMJ. 2002;325:766–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M, Brindle L, Jacoby A, Peters T, et al. Quality improvement report: improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult. BMJ. 2002;325:766–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
9.
go back to reference Gillies K, Skea ZC, Campbell MK. Decision aids for randomised controlled trials: a qualitative exploration of stakeholders’ views. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005734.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gillies K, Skea ZC, Campbell MK. Decision aids for randomised controlled trials: a qualitative exploration of stakeholders’ views. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005734.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Harman NL, Bruce IA, Callery P, Tierney S, Sharif MO, O’Brien K, et al. MOMENT--Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Cleft Palate: protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey. Trials. 2013;14:70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Harman NL, Bruce IA, Callery P, Tierney S, Sharif MO, O’Brien K, et al. MOMENT--Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Cleft Palate: protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey. Trials. 2013;14:70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Macefield RC, Blencowe N, Brookes S, Jacobs M, Sprangers M, Williamson P, et al. Core outcome set development: the effect of Delphi panel composition and feedback on prioritisation of outcomes. Trials. 2013;14 Suppl 1:77.CrossRef Macefield RC, Blencowe N, Brookes S, Jacobs M, Sprangers M, Williamson P, et al. Core outcome set development: the effect of Delphi panel composition and feedback on prioritisation of outcomes. Trials. 2013;14 Suppl 1:77.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Waters AM, Tudur Smith C, Young B, Jones TM. The CONSENSUS study: protocol for a mixed methods study to establish which outcomes should be included in a core outcome set for oropharyngeal cancer. Trials. 2014;15:168.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Waters AM, Tudur Smith C, Young B, Jones TM. The CONSENSUS study: protocol for a mixed methods study to establish which outcomes should be included in a core outcome set for oropharyngeal cancer. Trials. 2014;15:168.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Open Med. 2009;3:e123–30. Epub 2009 Jul 21.PubMedPubMedCentral Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Open Med. 2009;3:e123–30. Epub 2009 Jul 21.PubMedPubMedCentral
19.
20.
go back to reference Francis JJ, Johnston M, Robertson C, Glidewell L, Entwistle V, Eccles MP, et al. What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health. 2010;25:1229–45.CrossRefPubMed Francis JJ, Johnston M, Robertson C, Glidewell L, Entwistle V, Eccles MP, et al. What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health. 2010;25:1229–45.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Corbin JM, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2008.CrossRef Corbin JM, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2008.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference National Centre for Social Research. FrameWork. London: National Centre for Social Research; 2009. National Centre for Social Research. FrameWork. London: National Centre for Social Research; 2009.
23.
go back to reference Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:395–400.CrossRefPubMed Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:395–400.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Atkins RB, Tolson H, Cole BR. Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel: application of bootstrap data expansion. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:37.CrossRef Atkins RB, Tolson H, Cole BR. Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel: application of bootstrap data expansion. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:37.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of interventions for informed consent for randomised controlled trials (ELICIT): protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey
Authors
Katie Gillies
Vikki Entwistle
Shaun P. Treweek
Cynthia Fraser
Paula R. Williamson
Marion K. Campbell
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-1011-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Trials 1/2015 Go to the issue