4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Improving assent in health research: a rapid systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Enrolment in a research study requires the participant’s informed consent. In the case of minors, informed consent of the respective legal guardian is obtained in conjunction with informed assent of the underage p

          articipant. Since comprehension of the information provided may be limited, effective interventions to improve understanding should be identified. Thus, it is the objective of this study to review quantitative studies that tested interventions to improve the understanding of information provided during assent processes in health research. The studied population consisted of minors that participated or were willing to participate in research. The primary outcome was the level of comprehension after intervention.

          Methods

          A systematic search was conducted in eleven databases including regional databases: PubMed, Web of Science, ERIC, PsycINFO, CINAHL, POPLINE, AIM, LILACS, WPRIM, IMSEAR, and IMEMR and included references from inception of the database until July 2018 except PubMed which spanned the period from May 2013 to July 2018. Search terms focused on Informed Consent/Assent, Minors, and Comprehension. To complement the search, reference lists of retrieved publications were additionally searched. We included all quantitative studies that were conducted in minors, tested an intervention, covered assent processes in health research, and assessed comprehension. One reviewer screened titles, abstracts, and full-texts to determine eligibility and collected data on study design, population, intervention, methods, outcome, and for critical appraisal. Interventions comprised enhanced paper forms, interspersed questions, multimedia format, and others.

          Results

          Out of 7089 studies initially identified, 19 studies comprising 2805 participants and conducted in seven countries were included in the review. Fourteen studies (74 %) tested an intervention against control and ten (53 %) were randomized controlled trials. Heterogeneous methodology as well as incomplete outcome and statistical reporting impaired the reliability of the collected data. Positive effects were suggested for use of enhanced paper forms, interspersed questions, use of pie charts, and organizational factors.

          Conclusions

          Improving assent in health research is an under-researched area with little reliable evidence. While some interventions are proposed to improve understanding in assent processes, further investigation is necessary to be able to give evidence-based recommendations.

          Trial registration

          PROSPERO ID: 106808.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Informed consent instead of assent is appropriate in children from the age of twelve: Policy implications of new findings on children’s competence to consent to clinical research

          Background For many decades, the debate on children’s competence to give informed consent in medical settings concentrated on ethical and legal aspects, with little empirical underpinnings. Recently, data from empirical research became available to advance the discussion. It was shown that children’s competence to consent to clinical research could be accurately assessed by the modified MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research. Age limits for children to be deemed competent to decide on research participation have been studied: generally children of 11.2 years and above were decision-making competent, while children of 9.6 years and younger were not. Age was pointed out to be the key determining factor in children’s competence. In this article we reflect on policy implications of these findings, considering legal, ethical, developmental and clinical perspectives. Discussion Although assessment of children’s competence has a normative character, ethics, law and clinical practice can benefit from research data. The findings may help to do justice to the capacities children possess and challenges they may face when deciding about treatment and research options. We discuss advantages and drawbacks of standardized competence assessment in children on a case-by-case basis compared to application of a fixed age limit, and conclude that a selective implementation of case-by-case competence assessment in specific populations is preferable. We recommend the implementation of age limits based on empirical evidence. Furthermore, we elaborate on a suitable model for informed consent involving children and parents that would do justice to developmental aspects of children and the specific characteristics of the parent-child dyad. Summary Previous research outcomes showed that children’s medical decision-making capacities could be operationalized into a standardized assessment instrument. Recommendations for policies include a dual consent procedure, including both child as well as parents, for children from the age of 12 until they reach majority. For children between 10 and 12 years of age, and in case of children older than 12 years in special research populations of mentally compromised patients, we suggest a case-by-case assessment of children’s competence to consent. Since such a dual consent procedure is fundamentally different from a procedure of parental permission and child assent, and would imply a considerable shift regarding some current legislations, practical implications are elaborated.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Novel approach to parental permission and child assent for research: improving comprehension.

            The aim of this research was to test a multimedia permission/assent (P/A) process. The overall hypothesis was that children and their parents exposed to a multimedia P/A process would have better comprehension compared with those exposed to a text-based process. Traditional and multimedia P/A processes were created by using an innovative learning-objective approach. A total of 194 parent-child dyads (children aged 11-14 years) were enrolled: 24 dyads in a prestudy testing P/A components for preference and effect on comprehension and 170 dyads in a randomized trial of a multimedia or paper P/A process for a hypothetical study. Participants were predominantly white and were from a metropolitan area served by a tertiary care pediatric hospital and outpatient facility. Comprehension of 8 essential elements of the P/A process was assessed. The majority of prestudy subjects preferred the video version of the dual-energy radiograph absorptiometry description over the animated and paper versions combined (41 of 48 [85%]; P < .0001), and there were similar results for the abdominal ultrasound description (38 of 47 [81%]; P < .0001). Children exposed to the novel process showed significantly better overall comprehension compared with the paper P/A process (P = .0009), and there were highly significant differences in understanding of study procedures (P = .0002) and risks (P < .0001). The parental multimedia group had significantly better overall comprehension (P = .03). Multimedia approaches to the research P/A process may improve overall understanding of research participation for children and parents. Improved understanding of study-specific research components (rather than research rights) may improve overall comprehension.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The experiences of children enrolled in pediatric oncology research: implications for assent.

              Most children with cancer enroll in clinical research trials. Whenever possible, children must provide their assent before enrolling in research studies. We studied what children aged 7 to 18 with cancer understand about research, their research-related treatment, and their preferences for inclusion in decision-making. Thirty-seven face-to-face, audiorecorded interviews using a novel, semi-structured tool, the quality-of-assent instrument, were conducted. Exploratory univariate and bivariate analyses of the quantitative data elucidated patterns and trends of understanding and preferences. Nineteen of the 37 children (51%) did not know or recall that their treatment was considered research, and 19 of 22 (86%) did not understand their doctor when he or she discussed the trial. More children enrolled in trials to help future children with cancer (27 of 37 [73%]), than to get better personally (22 of 37 [60%]). Irrespective of age, children with Hodgkin's disease, germ-cell tumors, and leukemia had significantly greater research awareness and appreciation than children with other cancers (P = .019 and P < .001, respectively). Although all children wanted to be involved in decision-making, 18 of 37 (49%) did not have or recall having a role in deciding to enroll in their trial, and 14 of 37 (38%) did not feel free to dissent to trial enrollment. Only 4 of 37 children (11%) discussed increased decision-making roles with parents, and only 7 of 37 (19%) discussed them with their doctors. Most children have limited understanding of research despite physicians' explanations. Many children reported that they feel minimally involved in the decision to enroll in clinical trials. Tools to assist investigators ascertain that children understand what they are agreeing to when they assent to research and to determine their preferences for inclusion in research may help make assent more meaningful.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                dominik.soll@charite.de
                guraiibm@who.int
                rollinsn@who.int
                reisa@who.int
                Journal
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Medical Research Methodology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2288
                13 May 2020
                13 May 2020
                2020
                : 20
                : 114
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
                [2 ]GRID grid.3575.4, ISNI 0000000121633745, Global Health Ethics Team, World Health Organization, ; Geneva, Switzerland
                [3 ]GRID grid.3575.4, ISNI 0000000121633745, Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health, World Health Organization, ; Geneva, Switzerland
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7377-0220
                Article
                1000
                10.1186/s12874-020-01000-3
                7222594
                32404063
                af2c2585-12ed-4f51-b920-dba3ea42f755
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 24 September 2019
                : 30 April 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DE)
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Medicine
                informed consent,informed assent,informed consent forms,minors,adolescents,children,comprehension,understanding,rapid review

                Comments

                Comment on this article