Informed consent

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 376, Issue 9, 2017, Pages 856-867

  Grady, Christine ^a   Cummings, Steven R ^a   Rowbotham, Michael C ^a   McConnell, Michael V ^a   Ashley, Euan A ^a   Kang, Gagandeep ^a  

^a CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANONYMISED DATA; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DATA COLLECTION METHOD; DATA MINING; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERNET; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MOBILE APPLICATION; PRIVACY; RESEARCH SUBJECT; REVIEW; SOCIAL MEDIA; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); ETHICS; RESEARCH ETHICS; VIDEORECORDING;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERNET; MOBILE APPLICATIONS; VIDEO RECORDING;

EID: 85014927572     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1603773     Document Type: Review

References (95)

1. Miller F, Wertheimer A. The ethics of consent: theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
2. Faden R, Beauchamp T. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
3. Miller FG, Wertheimer A. The fair transaction model of informed consent: an alternative to autonomous authorization. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2011; 21: 201-18.
4. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45 CFR, Part 46 (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html).
5. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21 CFR, Part 50 (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?cfrpart=50&sh).
6. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki-ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 2013 (http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/).
7. International Conference on Harmonization. Guideline for good clinical practice: E6(R1). 1996 (http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public-Web-Site/ICH-Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E6/E6-R1-Guideline.pdf).
8. Grady C. Enduring and emerging challenges of informed consent. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 855-62.
9. Pullman D, Etchegary H, Gallagher K, et al. Personal privacy, public benefits, and biobanks: a conjoint analysis of policy priorities and public perceptions. Genet Med 2012; 14: 229-35.
10. Mostert M, Bredenoord A, Biessart M, van Delden JJ. Big Data in medical research and EU data protection law: challenges to the consent or anonymise approach. Eur J Hum Genet 2016; 24: 956-60.
11. Grande D, Mitra N, Shah A, Wan F, Asch DA. The importance of purpose: moving beyond consent in the societal use of personal health information. Ann Intern Med 2014; 161: 855-62.
12. Lynch HF, Bierer BE, Cohen IG. Confronting biospecimen exceptionalism in proposed revisions to the Common Rule. Hastings Cent Rep 2016; 46: 4-5.
13. El Emam K, Jonker E, Moher E, Arbuckle L. A review of evidence on consent bias in research. Am J Bioeth 2013; 13: 42-4.
14. Boyd D, Crawford K. Critical questions for Big Data. Inform Community Soc 2012; 15: 662-79
15. Goel V. Facebook tinkers with users' emotions in news feed experiment, stirring outcry. New York Times. June 29, 2014 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html?-r=0).
16. Zimmer M. OKCupid Study reveals the perils of Big-Data science. Wired. May 14, 2016 (https://www.wired.com/2016/05/okcupid-study-reveals-perils-big-data-science/).
17. Verma I. Editorial expression of concern: experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2014; 111: 10779.
18. Mikal J, Hurst S, Conway M. Ethical issues in using Twitter for population-level depression monitoring: a qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics 2016; 17: 22.
19. Simon JR. Corporate research ethics: whose responsibility? Ann Intern Med 2014; 161: 917-8 10.7326/M14-1669.
20. Office for Human Research Protections. Revisions to the Common Rule. 2017 (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/regulations/nprmhome.html).
21. Mascalzoni D, Dove ES, Rubinstein Y, et al. International Charter of principles for sharing bio-specimens and data. Eur J Hum Genet 2015; 23: 721-8.
22. Grady C, Eckstein L, Berkman B, et al. Broad consent for research with biological samples: workshop conclusions. Am J Bioeth 2015; 15: 34-42.
23. Wendler D. One-time general consent for research on biological samples. BMJ 2006; 332: 544-7.
24. Lo B, Barnes M. Federal research regulations for the 21st century. N Engl J Med 2016; 374: 1205-7.
25. Ballantyne A. In favor of a no-consent/opt-out model of research with clinical samples. Am J Bioeth 2015; 15: 65-7.
26. Vayena E, Mastroianni A, Kahn J. Caught in the Web: informed consent for online health research. Sci Transl Med 2013; 5: 173fs6.
27. Tomlinson T, De Vries R, Ryan K, Kim HM, Lehpamer N, Kim SY. Moral concerns and the willingness to donate to a research biobank. JAMA 2015; 313: 417-9.
28. Faden RR, Kass NE, Goodman SN, Pronovost P, Tunis S, Beauchamp TL. An ethics framework for a learning health care system: a departure from traditional research ethics and clinical ethics. Hastings Cent Rep 2013; 43: S16-S27.
29. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL, Kass NE. Informed consent for comparative effectiveness trials. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1959-60.
30. Kim SY, Miller FG. Informed consent for pragmatic trials - the integrated consent model. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 769-72.
31. McKinney RE Jr, Beskow LM, Ford DE, et al. Use of altered informed consent in pragmatic clinical research. Clin Trials 2015; 12: 494-502.
32. Botkin JR, Rothwell E, Anderson R, Stark LA, Mitchell J. Public attitudes regarding the use of electronic health information and residual clinical tissues for research. J Community Genet 2014; 5: 205-13.
33. Moodley K, Sibanda N, February K, Rossouw T. "It's my blood": ethical complexities in the use, storage and export of biological samples: perspectives from South African research participants. BMC Med Ethics 2014; 15: 4.
34. Brothers KB, Morrison DR, Clayton EW. Two large-scale surveys on community attitudes toward an opt-out biobank. Am J Med Genet A 2011; 155A: 2982-90.
35. Kaufman D, Bollinger J, Dvoskin R, Scott J. Preferences for opt-in and opt-out enrollment and consent models in biobank research: a national survey of Veterans Administration patients. Genet Med 2012; 14: 787-94.
36. Simon CM, L'heureux J, Murray JC, et al. Active choice but not too active: public perspectives on biobank consent models. Genet Med 2011; 13: 821-31.
37. Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Bares JM, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Burke W. Informed consent in genome-scale research: what do prospective participants think? AJOB Prim Res 2012; 3(3): 3-11.
38. Treweek S, Doney A, Leiman D. Public attitudes to the storage of blood left over from routine general practice tests and its use in research. J Health Serv Res Policy 2009; 14: 13-9.
39. Riordan F, Papoutsi C, Reed JE, Marston C, Bell D, Majeed A. Patient and public attitudes towards informed consent models and levels of awareness of Electronic Health Records in the UK. Int J Med Inform 2015; 84: 237-47.
40. Boren ZD. There are officially more mobile devices than people in the world. Independent. October 7, 2014 (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/there-are-officially-more-mobile-devices-than-people-in-the-world-9780518.html).
41. Sage Bionetworks. Participant centered consent toolkit (http://sagebase.org/governance/pcc-toolkit-frequently-asked-questions).
42. Apple. Introducing ResearchKit (http://researchkit.org/).
43. Kaye J, Whitley EA, Lund D, Morrison M, Teare H, Melham K. Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. Eur J Hum Genet 2015; 23: 141-6.
44. Wee R, Henaghan M, Winship I. Dynamic consent in the digital age of biology: online initiatives and regulatory considerations. J Prim Health Care 2013; 5: 341-7.
45. Meslin EM, Alpert SA, Carroll AE, Odell JD, Tierney WM, Schwartz PH. Giving patients granular control of personal health information: using an ethics 'Points to Consider' to inform informatics system designers. Int J Med Inform 2013; 82: 1136-43.
46. McCaughey T, Liang HH, Chen C, et al. An interactive mul-timedia approach to improving informed consent for induced pluripotent stem cell research. Cell Stem Cell 2016; 18: 307-8.
47. Nishimura A, Carey J, Erwin PJ, Tilburt JC, Murad MH, Mc-Cormick 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.
48. Plaut VC, Bartlett RP. Blind consent? A social psychological investigation of non-readership of click-through agreements. Law Hum Behav 2012; 36: 293-311.
49. Bakos Y, Marotta-Wurgler F, Trossen D. Does anyone read the fine print? Consumer attention to standard form contracts. J Legal Stud 2014; 43: 1-47.
50. Use of electronic informed consent in clinical investigations: questions and answers-guidance for institutional review boards, investigators, and sponsors. Silver Spring, MD: Food and Drug Administration, December 2016 (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm436811.pdf).
51. Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T. Digital multimedia: a new approach for informed consent? JAMA 2015; 313: 463-4.
52. Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA 2004; 292: 1593-601.
53. Hockley WE. The picture superiority effect in associative recognition. Mem Cognit 2008; 36: 1351-9.
54. Festinger DS, Dugosh KL, Croft JR, Arabia PL, Marlowe DB. Corrected feedback: a procedure to enhance recall of informed consent to research among substance abusing offenders. Ethics Behav 2010; 20: 387-99.
55. Rowbotham MC, Astin J, Greene K, Cummings SR. Interactive informed consent: randomized comparison with paper consents. PLoS One 2013; 8(3): e58603.
56. Rothwell E, Wong B, Rose NC, et al. A randomized controlled trial of an electronic informed consent process. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2014; 9(5): 1-7.
57. Vanaken H. eConsent study provides insights to shape industry adoption. Applied Clinical Trials Online. August 1, 2016 (http://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/econsent-study-provides-insights-shape-industry-adoption).
58. Simon CM, Klein DW, Schartz HA. Interactive multimedia consent for biobanking: a randomized trial. Genet Med 2016; 18: 57-64.
59. Warriner AH, Foster PJ, Mudano A, et al. A pragmatic randomized trial comparing tablet computer informed consent to traditional paper-based methods for an osteoporosis study. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2016; 3: 32-8.
60. Boutin NT, Mathieu K, Hoffnagle AG, et al. Implementation of electronic consent at a biobank: an opportunity for precision medicine research. J Pers Med 2016; 6: 17-28.
61. Simon CM, Klein DW, Schartz HA. Traditional and electronic informed consent for biobanking: a survey of U.S. biobanks. Biopreserv Biobank 2014; 12: 423-9.
62. Karlson EW, Boutin NT, Hoffnagle AG, Allen NL. Building the Partners HealthCare Biobank at Partners Personalized Medicine: informed consent, return of research results, recruitment lessons and operational considerations. J Pers Med 2016; 6: 2-13.
63. Dorsey ER, Venuto C, Venkataraman V, Harris DA, Kieburtz K. Novel methods and technologies for 21st-century clinical trials: a review. JAMA Neurol 2015; 72: 582-8.
64. Wilson LS, Maeder AJ. Recent directions in telemedicine: review of trends in research and practice. Healthc Inform Res 2015; 21: 213-22.
65. Tanner CM, Meng CC, Ravina B, et al. A practical approach to remote longitudinal follow-up of Parkinson's disease: the FOUND study. Mov Disord 2014; 29: 743-9.
66. Orri M, Lipset CH, Jacobs BP, Costello AJ, Cummings SR. Web-based trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tolterodine ER 4 mg in participants with overactive bladder: REMOTE trial. Contemp Clin Trials 2014; 38: 190-7.
67. Jacobs BP, Bent S, Tice JA, Blackwell T, Cummings SR. An Internet-based randomized, placebo-controlled trial of kava and valerian for anxiety and insomnia. Medicine (Baltimore) 2005; 84: 197-207.
68. Bent S, Hendren RL, Zandi T, et al. Internet-based, randomized, controlled trial of omega-3 fatty acids for hyperactivity in autism. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2014; 53: 658-66.
69. Lentz J, Kennett M, Perlmutter J, Forrest A. Paving the way to a more effective informed consent process: recommendations from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. Contemp Clin Trials 2016; 49: 65-9.
70. GSMA mobile economy 2016 (http://www.gsma.com/mobileeconomy/global/2016/).
71. Ericsson mobility report. Stockholm: Ericsson, November 2016 (https://www.ericsson.com/assets/local/mobility-report/documents/2016/ericsson-mobility-report-november-2016.pdf).
72. Meeker M. Internet trends 2016-code conference. June 1, 2016 (http://www.kpcb.com/internet-trends).
73. Brooks GC, Vittinghoff E, Iyer S, et al. Accuracy and usability of a self-administered 6-minute walk test smartphone application. Circ Heart Fail 2015; 8: 905-13.
74. Newport F. Most U.S. smartphone owners check phone at least hourly. Gallup. July 9, 2015 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/184046/smartphone-owners-check-phone-least-hourly.aspx).
75. Filkins BL, Kim JY, Roberts B, et al. Privacy and security in the era of digital health: what should translational researchers know and do about it? Am J Transl Res 2016; 8: 1560-80.
76. Dorsey ER, Yvonne Chan YF, McConnell MV, Shaw SY, Trister AD, Friend SH. The use of smartphones for health research. Acad Med 2017; 92: 157-60.
77. ResearchKit: obtaining consent (http://researchkit.org/docs/docs/InformedConsent/InformedConsent.html).
78. Regalado A. 23andMe to share DNA data with researchers using Apple iPhone. MIT Technology Review. March 21, 2016 (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601082/23andme-to-share-dna-data-with-researchers-using-apple-iphone/).
79. ResearchKit study apps for both iOS and Android. New York: Applied Informatics (http://appliedinformaticsinc.com/mobile-researchkit-study-apps/).
80. McConnell MV, Shcherbina A, Pavlovic A, et al. Feasibility of obtaining measures of lifestyle from a smartphone app: the My-Heart Counts Cardiovascular Health Study. JAMA Cardiol 2017; 2: 67-76.
81. Mega JL, Sabatine MS, Antman EM. Population and personalized medicine in the modern era. JAMA 2014; 312: 1969-70.
82. Antman EM, Benjamin EJ, Harrington RA, et al. Acquisition, analysis, and sharing of data in 2015 and beyond: a survey of the landscape: a conference report from the American Heart Association Data Summit 2015. J Am Heart Assoc 2015; 4(11): e002810.
83. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 793-5.
84. Ashley EA. The precision medicine initiative: a new national effort. JAMA 2015; 313: 2119-20.
85. All of Us research program. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health (https://www.nih.gov/AllofUs-Research-Program).
86. Guidance for industry-use of electronic informed consent in clinical investigations: questions and answers-guidance for industry. Silver Spring, MD: Food and Drug Administration, March 2015 (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm436811.pdf).
87. Mobile medical applications-guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff. Silver Spring, MD: Food and Drug Administration, February 9, 2015 (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM263366.pdf).
88. General wellness: policy for low risk devices-guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff. Silver Spring, MD: Food and Drug Administration, July 29, 2016 (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationand guidance/guidancedocuments/ucm429674.pdf).
89. Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (AKA "The Common Rule"). Silver Spring, MD: Food and Drug Administration, January 19, 2017 (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/19/2017-01058/federal-policy-for-the-protection-of-human-subjects).
90. Rothstein MA, Wilbanks JT, Brothers KB. Citizen science on your smartphone: an ELSI research agenda. J Law Med Ethics 2015; 43: 897-903.
91. Bhattacharjee Y. Clinical trials paused as India adopts new rules. Science 2013; 341: 327.
92. Kulkarni NG, Dalal JJ, Kulkarni TN. Audio-video recording of informed consent process: boon or bane. Perspect Clin Res 2014; 5: 6-10.
93. CDSCO. Guidelines on audio-visual recording of informed consent process in clinical trial. New Delhi, India: Central Drugs Standard Control Organization, January 9, 2014 (http://www.cdsco.nic.in/writereaddata/Guidance-for-AV%20Recording-09.January.14.pdf).
94. SOP for audio visual recording of informed consent process. Faridabad, India: Clinical Development Services Agency (http://www.cdsaindia.in/sites/default/files/AV-Consent-FERCI-template-06-01-14-Final-1.pdf).
95. Chauhan RC, Purty AJ, Singh N. Consent for audio-video recording of informed consent process in rural South India. Perspect Clin Res 2015; 6: 159-62.