Are there adverse consequences of quizzing during informed consent for HIV research?

Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Journal of medical ethics (Impact Factor: 1.51). 06/2011; 37(11):693-7. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2011.042358
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT While quizzing during informed consent for research to ensure understanding has become commonplace, it is unclear whether the quizzing itself is problematic for potential participants. In this study, we address this issue in a multinational HIV prevention research trial enrolling injection drug users in China and Thailand.
Enrolment procedures included an informed consent comprehension quiz. An informed consent survey followed.
525 participants completed the informed consent survey (Heng County, China¼255, Xinjiang, China¼229, Chiang Mai, Thailand¼41). Mean age was 33 and mean educational level was 8 yrs. While quizzing was felt to be a good way to determine if a person understands the nature of clinical trial participation (97%) and participants did not generally find the quiz to be problematic, minorities of respondents felt pressured (6%); anxious (5%); bored (5%); minded (5%); and did not find the questions easy (13%). In multivariate analysis, lower educational level was associated with not minding the quizzing (6e10 yrs vs 0e5 yrs: OR¼0.27, p¼0.03; more than 11 yrs vs 0e5 yrs: OR¼0.18, p¼0.03). There were also site differences (Heng County vs Xinjiang) in feeling anxious (OR¼0.07; p¼<0.01), not minding (OR¼0.26; p¼0.03), being bored (OR¼0.25; p¼0.01) and not finding the questions easy (OR¼0.10; p¼<0.01).
Quizzing during the informed consent process can be problematic for a minority of participants. These problems may be associated with the setting in which research takes place and educational level. Further research is needed to develop, test and implement alternative methods of ensuring comprehension of informed consent. TriAL REGISTRATION: number NCT00270257.

Download full-text


Available from: Deborah J Donnell, Sep 27, 2015
19 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) is supported by the NIH to conduct randomized clinical trials to assess the efficacy of HIV prevention strategies and technologies to reduce HIV transmission between adults. A special focus of attention is on the use of antiretroviral drugs to prevent HIV transmission, both by reducing infectiousness among HIV-infected persons taking combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) and also by reducing susceptibility among HIV-uninfected persons taking antiretrovirals for pre-exposure prophylaxis. Studies may be developmental in nature to assess novel ideas for interventions or for assessing trial feasibility. However, pivotal efficacy trials to test HIV-specific prevention strategies and technologies are the main HPTN priority. Examples include a major protocol investigating the impact of expanded testing and linkage to care on HIV surveillance indicators in the USA (HPTN 065). Another protocol is addressing similar issues while also investigating how combinations of prevention approaches are best deployed to make a community-level impact in southern Africa (HPTN 071). HPTN 068 is evaluating a novel conditional cash transfer structural intervention to increase school completion rates in young girls and thereby reduce their HIV risk. Studies outside the US address the epidemic in most at-risk populations and include an assessment of opiate agonist therapy to reduce risk of HIV seroconversion among injection drug users (HTPN 058), methods to increase HIV testing rates (HTPN 043), as well as methods for reducing high-risk behaviors, and increasing adherence to cART in HIV-infected individuals (HPTN 062 and HPTN 063, respectively). The recent HPTN 052 study demonstrated that a 96% reduction in HIV transmission could be achieved between serodiscordant sexual partners by providing the infected partners with cART at a CD4(+) cell count (350-550/µl) above the level that would usually qualify them for therapy in low- and middle-income countries. The immediate relevance to public health policy showcased in these trials is a paradigm for the HPTN: design and conduct of clinical trials using available licensed tools that can be rapidly translated for implementation ('Prevention NOW!').
    12/2011; 1(12):1609-1618. DOI:10.4155/cli.11.156
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Communication at discharge is an important part of high-quality emergency department (ED) care. This review describes the existing literature on patient understanding and implementation of discharge instructions, discusses previous interventions aimed at improving the discharge process, and recommends best practices and future research. MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched, using combinations of key terms. Literature from both the adult and pediatric ED populations was reviewed. Multiple reports have shown deficient comprehension at discharge, with patients or parents frequently unable to report their diagnosis, management plan, or reasons to return. Interventions to improve discharge communication have been, at best, moderately successful. Patients need structured content, presented verbally, with written and visual cues to enhance recall. Written instructions need to be provided in the patient's language and at an appropriate reading level. Understanding should be confirmed before the patient leaves the ED. Further research is needed to describe the optimal content, channel, and timing for the ED discharge process and the relationship between discharge process and outcomes.
    Annals of emergency medicine 01/2012; 60(2):152-9. DOI:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.10.023 · 4.68 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Some argue that to be effective in healthcare settings autonomy needs to be strengthened. The author thinks autonomy is fundamentally inadequate in healthcare settings and requires supplementation by experience-based paternalism on the part of doctors and healthcare providers.
    Journal of medical ethics 02/2012; 40(5). DOI:10.1136/medethics-2012-100492 · 1.51 Impact Factor
Show more