UCL Discovery
UCL home » Library Services » Electronic resources » UCL Discovery

A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial

Grady, C; Touloumi, G; Walker, AS; Smolskis, M; Sharma, S; Babiker, AG; Pantazis, N; ... START Informed Consent Substudy Group, .; + view all (2017) A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial. PLoS ONE , 12 (4) , Article e0172607. 10.1371/journal.pone.0172607. Green open access

[thumbnail of Published article]
Preview
Text (Published article)
Grady_Randomized_trial_comparing.pdf - Published Version

Download (986kB) | Preview
[thumbnail of Supplementary file 1: Protocol and consents]
Preview
Text (Supplementary file 1: Protocol and consents)
Grady_Randomized_trial_comparing_S1.pdf

Download (1MB) | Preview
[thumbnail of Supplementary file 2: List of approving IRBs/RECs]
Preview
Text (Supplementary file 2: List of approving IRBs/RECs)
Grady_Randomized_trial_comparing_S2.pdf

Download (426kB) | Preview
[thumbnail of Supplementary file 3: CONSORT Checklist]
Preview
Text (Supplementary file 3: CONSORT Checklist)
Grady_Randomized_trial_comparing_S3.pdf

Download (140kB) | Preview
[thumbnail of Supplementary file 4: CONSORT Flow Chart]
Preview
Text (Supplementary file 4: CONSORT Flow Chart)
Grady_Randomized_trial_comparing_S4.pdf

Download (138kB) | Preview
[thumbnail of Supplementary file 5: Previous publication]
Preview
Text (Supplementary file 5: Previous publication)
Grady_Randomized_trial_comparing_S5.pdf

Download (73kB) | Preview
[thumbnail of Supplementary file 6: Full list of START investigators]
Preview
Text (Supplementary file 6: Full list of START investigators)
Grady_Randomized_trial_comparing_S6.pdf

Download (173kB) | Preview

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of research informed consent is a high priority. Some express concern about longer, more complex, written consent forms creating barriers to participant understanding. A recent meta-analysis concluded that randomized comparisons were needed. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized non-inferiority comparison of a standard versus concise consent form within a multinational trial studying the timing of starting antiretroviral therapy in HIV+ adults (START). Interested sites were randomized to standard or concise consent forms for all individuals signing START consent. Participants completed a survey measuring comprehension of study information and satisfaction with the consent process. Site personnel reported usual site consent practices. The primary outcome was comprehension of the purpose of randomization (pre-specified 7.5% non-inferiority margin). RESULTS: 77 sites (2429 participants) were randomly allocated to use standard consent and 77 sites (2000 participants) concise consent, for an evaluable cohort of 4229. Site and participant characteristics were similar for the two groups. The concise consent was non-inferior to the standard consent on comprehension of randomization (80.2% versus 82%, site adjusted difference: 0.75% (95% CI -3.8%, +5.2%)); and the two groups did not differ significantly on total comprehension score, satisfaction, or voluntariness (p>0.1). Certain independent factors, such as education, influenced comprehension and satisfaction but not differences between consent groups. CONCLUSIONS: An easier to read, more concise consent form neither hindered nor improved comprehension of study information nor satisfaction with the consent process among a large number of participants. This supports continued efforts to make consent forms more efficient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Informed consent substudy was registered as part of START study in clinicaltrials.gov #NCT00867048, and EudraCT # 2008-006439-12.

Type: Article
Title: A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial
Open access status: An open access version is available from UCL Discovery
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172607
Publisher version: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172607
Language: English
Additional information: Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
UCL classification: UCL
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > Inst of Clinical Trials and Methodology
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > Inst of Clinical Trials and Methodology > MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL
URI: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1542456
Downloads since deposit
469Downloads
Download activity - last month
Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads by country - last 12 months

Archive Staff Only

View Item View Item