Psychology of the Informed Consent Process: A Commentary on Three Recent Articles

In conducting research on humans, respect for human dignity requires investigators to obtain informed consent. Institutional pressures, however, often reduce the informed consent form to a signature on a document. Unfortunately, people often do not read or understand these documents. In the present effort, we argue that the key problem here arises because investigators often do not take into account the psychology of participants. Based on 3 articles, we argue that informed consent requires investigators to help participants “make sense” of a study, and its implications, for both themselves and others. Informed consent procedures that might encourage participant sensemaking are discussed.     

Genetic research,adolescents, and informed consent

The participation of adolescents in genetic research engenders unusual problems concerning the nature of their informed consent. In this study we analyze 70 consent documents collected from genetics investigators in the United States who conduct research with children and adolescents. We find that many consent documents do not reflect either the current or the developing ethical and legal standards for research with adolescents and that in many cases the documents are simply confusing or unclear. We make recommendations for change to reflect more adequately the changing perspective concerning the autonomous decision-making capacity of adolescents.     

Should protections for research with humans who cannot consent apply to research with nonhuman primates?

Research studies and interventions sometimes offer potential benefits to subjects that compensate for the risks they face. Other studies and interventions, which I refer to as “nonbeneficial” research, do not offer subjects a compensating potential for benefit. These studies and interventions have the potential to exploit subjects for the benefit of others, a concern that is especially acute when investigators enroll individuals who are unable to give informed consent. US regulations for research with human subjects attempt to address this concern by mandating strict protections for nonbeneficial research with subjects who cannot consent. Typically, humans who cannot consent, such as children, may be enrolled in nonbeneficial research only when it poses low risks and has the potential to gather information of sufficient value to justify the risks, an appropriate surrogate gives permission on the individual’s behalf and the individual agrees (assents). In contrast, US regulations for nonbeneficial research with nonhuman primates do not include these protections, even though it too involves subjects who cannot consent and who face risks for the benefit of others. Is this difference in regulatory protections justified? Or does the principle of fairness—treat like cases alike—imply that regulations for nonbeneficial research with nonhuman primates should include protections similar to those that apply to nonbeneficial research with humans who cannot consent?     

Informed Consent

Summary

This article focuses on informed consent and the components to be reviewed with clients in the first session or as early as possible thereafter. Recent changes that give patients greater autonomy in the treatment process are also presented. The process of obtaining informed consent or informed refusal places a new responsibility on the practitioner. Informed consent as it pertains to clinical practice, supervision and training, and psychological research is also discussed.     

Participants' Understanding of the Process of Psychological Research: Informed Consent

Sixty-five undergraduates participating in a wide range of psychological research experiments were interviewed in depth about their research experiences and their views on the process of informed consent. Overall, 32% of research experiences were characterized positively and 41 % were characterized negatively. One major theme of the negative experiences was that experiments were perceived as too invasive, suggesting incomplete explication of negative aspects of research during the informed consent process. Informed consent experiences were viewed positively 80% of the time. However, most of the participants had a limited view of the purpose of informed consent: Less than 20% viewed the process as a decision point. Results suggest a number of common pitfalls to standard informed consent practices that have not generally been recognized. Results are discussed in terms of both ethical and methodological implications. Suggestions for improving the informed consent process are also provided.     

Participants' understanding of the process of psychological research: informed consent

Sixty-five undergraduates participating in a wide range of psychological research experiments were interviewed in depth about their research experiences and their views on the process of informed consent. Overall, 32% of research experiences were characterized positively and 41% were characterized negatively. One major theme of the negative experiences was that experiments were perceived as too invasive, suggesting incomplete explication of negative aspects of research during the informed consent process. Informed consent experiences were viewed positively 80% of the time. However, most of the participants had a limited view of the purpose of informed consent: less than 20% viewed the process as a decision point. Results suggest a number of common pitfalls to standard informed consent practices that have not generally been recognized. Results are discussed in terms of both ethical and methodological implications. Suggestions for improving the informed consent process are also provided.     

A Goodness-of-Fit Approach to Informed Consent for Pediatric Intervention Research

As children and adolescents receive increased research attention, ethical issues related to obtaining informed consent for pediatric intervention research have come into greater focus. In this article, we conceptualize parent permission and child assent within a goodness-of-fit framework that encourages investigators to create consent procedures “fitted” to the research context, the child's cognitive and emotional maturity, and the family system. Drawing on relevant literature and a hypothetical case example, we highlight four factors investigators may consider when constructing consent procedures that best reflect participants' rights, concerns, and well-being: (a) the child's current assent capacity and the likely impact of study information on the child's mental and physical development, (b) parents' understanding of their child's treatment needs and distinctions between treatment and clinical trials research, (c) the family's history of shared decision making, and (d) the child's strivings for autonomy within the context of their parents' duty to make decisions in the child's best interest.     

美国与知情同意有关的一些问题

知情同意是医疗保健和医学研究的一个基本的伦理学要求。这两种情况中,当医学研究的知情同意标准比医疗保健要求更加严格时,知情同意包含了3种要素：（1）告知病人或受试者该研究的性质。包括益处,危险和其他有关内容;（2）确保病人受试者理解所提供的信息;（3）得到病人或受试者自愿的同意,没有能力参与知情同意的病人包括患痴呆和危重病等无决断 能力的病人,这些病人属弱势病人。如要获许对他们的疾病进行研究,我们必须制定保护弱势受试者有效的伦理政策,提出了关于对痴呆病人、危重病人,脑死亡病人研究的伦理学政策。     

The fair transaction model of informed consent: an alternative to autonomous authorization

The doctrine of informed consent in bioethics has relied on the view that consent is valid when it represents a patient or research subject's autonomous authorization. In this article we challenge this reigning conception of the validity of informed consent in clinical research, focusing in particular on the problem of the therapeutic misconception. We argue that the autonomous authorization model of informed consent suffers from four defects: (1) it fails to do justice to the relevance of risk-benefit considerations in shaping the criteria for the validity of consent, (2) it compromises the interests of subjects by preventing them from consenting to research participation with less than substantial understanding when doing so would likely be consistent with their preferences and beneficial to them or at least be unlikely to cause them harm, (3) it jeopardizes the interests of investigators by denying them fair notice regarding when the consent of research subjects can be considered valid and thus make it permissible for them to be enrolled in research, and (4) it threatens the reasonable limits on the responsibility of investigators to assure the adequacy of subjects' understanding of what research participation involves. In place of the autonomous authorization model, we present and defend a fair transaction model of informed consent, which better reflects the values served by consent.     

Emergency Research without Consent under Polish Law

Although Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use does not contain an exception for emergency situations, and requires the informed consent of a legal representative in all cases where research is conducted on legally competent individuals who are unable to give informed consent, in Poland, emergency research can be conducted without consent. Polish regulations on emergency research can hardly be treated as a result of intentional legislative policy. Our provisions arise from multiple and sophisticated interpretations of different regulations that govern medical experiments on human subjects and clinical trials. These interpretations can be summarized as follows: (1) There are two categories of medical experiments: therapeutic and non-therapeutic experiments. Emergency research without consent may be conducted in the category of therapeutic experiment only (therapeutic experiment consists of the introduction by the physician of new or only partially proven diagnostic, therapeutic or preventive methods in order to achieve direct benefit to the health of the patients, and it can be carried out when hitherto applied methods were ineffective or their effectiveness was insufficient). (2). Emergency research may be conducted without consent if there is a situation of great urgency in which the research subject's life is in danger and there is no possibility of obtaining immediate consent from the research subject him or herself, or from his or her legal representative or guardianship court, and the research subject has not refused to give consent for the participation in an emergency therapeutic experiment. The legal representative or guardianship court shall be provided with all the relevant information concerning subject's participation in an experiment as soon as possible. All projects of emergency research with intent to be done without the research subject's consent must be approved by an independent bioethics committee. Because these five requirements seem to provide insufficient protection for a subject's autonomy and rights it is necessary to add to them two other conditions: (1) the emergency research could not be conducted using other research participants capable of giving informed consent; and (2) informed consent for continued participation in the emergency research shall be obtained from either the participant him or herself or the legally authorized representative as soon as possible (requirement of obtaining deferred consent). A consolidated single Act that will govern all aspects of medical experiments on human subjects, including emergency research, should be prepared and enacted as soon as possible.     

Hide-and-seek or show-and-tell? Emerging issues of informed consent

This article reviews key philosophical and legal underpinnings of mental health professionals' obligation to obtain informed consent from consumers of their services. The basic components of informed consent are described, and strategies for clinically and ethically appropriate methods of obtaining informed consent are discussed. Emerging issues in informed consent involving duty to assess and protect against client dangerousness, obligations to third parties, and issues of deception are considered as well. The article proposes that part of the process of obtaining informed consent is the cultivation of a treatment environment that emphasizes beneficence and client autonomy.     

Sign on the Dotted Line: The Informed Consent Process (ICP) as Induced Compliance1

We investigated the social implications of signing an informed consent form (ICF) on participant behavior. ICF research fails to consider that the decision to participate in research is a process that occurs in a social and cultural context. Understanding the meaning of giving consent in this social context is critical. In separate experiments, we found significantly greater agreement to return to complete a study and persistence at a task in participants who signed the ICF versus those who did not. Signing the ICF may be putting participants at risk of induced compliance with study protocols, rather than empowering them to withhold consent or withdraw. Future research should investigate the psychosocial factors affecting participants' decision making in the informed consent process.     

Malpractice Arising From Negligent Psychotherapy: Ethical,Legal, and Clinical Implications of Osheroff v. Chestnut Lodge

This article reviews key philosophical and legal underpinnings of mental health professionals' obligation to obtain informed consent from consumers of their services. The basic components of informed consent are described, and strategies for clinically and ethically appropriate methods of obtaining informed consent are discussed. Emerging issues in informed consent involving duty to assess and protect against client dangerousness, obligations to third parties, and issues of deception are considered as well. The article proposes that part of the process of obtaining informed consent is the cultivation of a treatment environment that emphasizes beneficence and client autonomy.     

Collecting Informed Consent with Juvenile Justice Populations: Issues and Implications for Research

Researchers must provide participants with opportunities to make informed decisions about whether to participate in research studies. Investigators conducting research with youth in the juvenile justice system face unique ethical, legal, and practical challenges to obtaining informed consent. Juvenile justice researchers must navigate multiple legal and ethical standards for collecting informed consent, take into account youths’ dual vulnerabilities as children and prisoners, and overcome practical limitations to obtaining parental/guardian permission. Given the challenges and complexity of obtaining standard informed consent of youth in juvenile justice facilities, this paper provides suggestions for overcoming obstacles to recruiting these youth for research participation. It offers guidance for fostering the enrollment of juvenile justice youth in research studies using procedures that comply with ethical and legal standards for research with this dually vulnerable population. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Do Research Intermediaries Reduce Perceived Coercion to Enter Research Trials Among Criminally Involved Substance Abusers?

We examined the efficacy of including a research intermediary (RI) during the consent process in reducing participants' perceptions of coercion to enroll in a research study. Eighty-four drug court clients being recruited into an ongoing study were randomized to receive a standard informed consent process alone (standard condition) or with an RI (intermediary condition). Before obtaining consent, RIs met with clients individually to discuss remaining concerns. Findings provided preliminary evidence that RIs reduced client perceptions that their participation might influence how clinical and judicial staff view them. This suggests that using RIs may improve participant autonomy in clinical studies.     

纸质与视频补充材料对手术知情同意体验的影响：以腹腔镜胆囊切除手术为例

知情同意书在医患沟通中起着间接传递信息的重要作用。以159名大学生为被试,通过操纵不同的知情同意方式,考察了纸质或视频补充信息对患者知情同意满意度、理解程度以及患者信息需求的满足程度影响。结果发现,接受纸质补充知情同意或视频补充知情同意的被试对知情同意过程的满意度、对手术信息的理解程度与知情同意信息需求的满足程度显著高于接受普通知情同意的被试。同时,纸质补充知情同意使得“治疗信息需求的满足程度”最高。这表明,纸质补充知情同意更能满足患者对治疗信息的需求。     

Do Research Intermediaries Reduce Perceived Coercion to Enter Research Trials Among Criminally Involved Substance Abusers?

We examined the efficacy of including a research intermediary (RI) during the consent process in reducing participants' perceptions of coercion to enroll in a research study. Eighty-four drug court clients being recruited into an ongoing study were randomized to receive a standard informed consent process alone (standard condition) or with an RI (intermediary condition). Before obtaining consent, RIs met with clients individually to discuss remaining concerns. Findings provided preliminary evidence that RIs reduced client perceptions that their participation might influence how clinical and judicial staff view them. This suggests that using RIs may improve participant autonomy in clinical studies.     

Research without Consent: Exception from and Waiver of Informed Consent in Resuscitation Research

The ethical concept of Informed Consent provides individuals with the right and the opportunity to approve of events that will occur regarding his or her own person. In medicine, informed consent is obtained for treatment and for research participation. However, under some circumstances, prospective informed consent cannot be obtained because of the devastating clinical condition of the patient. In emergency circumstances, treatment is never withheld if obtaining informed consent from a critically ill person is not possible or if a delay while seeking surrogates would further endanger life. In emergency research circumstances, waiving informed consent for study participation is fraught with additional ethical considerations. This article will review a presentation given at the June 2, 2006 conference entitled “The Ethics of Research in Emergency Medicine”. An earlier version of this paper was presented at: The 7th International Conference on Bioethics on “The Ethics of Research in Emergency Medicine”, held on June 2, 2006, Warsaw, Poland.     

“Not Tied Up Neatly with a Bow”: Professionals’ Challenging Cases in Informed Consent for Genomic Sequencing

As the use of genomic technology has expanded in research and clinical settings, issues surrounding informed consent for genome and exome sequencing have surfaced. Despite the importance of informed consent, little is known about the specific challenges that professionals encounter when consenting patients or research participants for genomic sequencing. We interviewed 29 genetic counselors and research coordinators with considerable experience obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing to understand their experiences and perspectives. As part of this interview, 24 interviewees discussed an informed consent case they found particularly memorable or challenging. We analyzed these case examples to determine the primary issue or challenge represented by each case. Challenges fell into two domains: participant understanding, and facilitating decisions about testing or research participation. Challenges related to participant understanding included varying levels of general and genomic literacy, difficulty managing participant expectations, and contextual factors that impeded participant understanding. Challenges related to facilitating decision-making included complicated family dynamics such as disagreement or coercion, situations in which it was unclear whether sequencing research would be a good use of participant time or resources, and situations in which the professional experienced disagreement or discomfort with participant decisions. The issues highlighted in these case examples are instructive in preparing genetics professionals to obtain informed consent for genomic sequencing.     

Neuropsychological Functioning and Recall of Research Consent Information Among Drug Court Clients

Evidence suggests that research participants often fail to recall much of the information provided during the informed consent process. This study was conducted to determine the proportion of consent information recalled by drug court participants following a structured informed consent procedure and the neuropsychological factors that were related to recall. Eighty-five participants completed a standard informed consent procedure to participate in an ongoing research study, followed by a 17-item consent quiz and a brief neuropsychological battery 2 weeks later. Participants performed within the normal range on most of the neuropsychological measures, although roughly one third showed deficits on measures of executive functioning. Participants failed to recall over 65% of the consent information within 2 weeks of entering the study, and their recall was significantly correlated with verbal IQ, drug problem severity, reading ability, memory, and attention. These factors may be useful in determining whether research participants require enhanced consent procedures.