Consent revisited: the impact of return of results on participants' views and expectations about trial participation
- PMID: 25929296
- PMCID: PMC4737222
- DOI: 10.1111/hex.12371
Consent revisited: the impact of return of results on participants' views and expectations about trial participation
Abstract
Background: Increasingly, the sharing of study results with participants is advocated as an element of good research practice. Yet little is known about how receiving the results of trials may impact on participants' perceptions of their original decision to consent.
Objective: We explored participants' views of their decision to consent to a clinical trial after they received results showing adverse outcomes in some arms of the trial.
Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 38 women in the UK who participated in a trial of antibiotics in pregnancy. All had received results from a follow-up study that reported increased risk of adverse outcomes for children of participants in some of the trial intervention arms. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method.
Results: Participants' original decisions to consent to the trial had been based on hope of personal benefit and assumptions of safety. On receiving the results, most made sense of their experience in ways that enabled them to remain content with their decision to take part. But for some, the results provoked recognition that their original expectations might have been mistaken or that they had not understood the implications of their decision to participate. These participants experienced guilt, a sense of betrayal by the maternity staff and researchers involved in the trial, and damage to trust.
Conclusions: Sharing of study results is not a wholly benign practice, and requires careful development of suitable approaches for further evaluation before widespread adoption.
Keywords: UK; clinical trial; decision-making; informed consent; qualitative; research results.
© 2015 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Similar articles
-
What women think about consent to research at the time of an obstetric emergency: a qualitative study of the views of a cohort of World Maternal Antifibrinolytic Trial participants.BJOG. 2018 Dec;125(13):1744-1753. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15333. Epub 2018 Jul 31. BJOG. 2018. PMID: 29911309 Free PMC article.
-
Researcher and study participants' perspectives of consent in clinical studies in four referral hospitals in Vietnam.BMC Med Ethics. 2020 Jan 10;21(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-0445-z. BMC Med Ethics. 2020. PMID: 31924199 Free PMC article.
-
Written versus verbal consent: a qualitative study of stakeholder views of consent procedures used at the time of recruitment into a peripartum trial conducted in an emergency setting.BMC Med Ethics. 2017 May 24;18(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s12910-017-0196-7. BMC Med Ethics. 2017. PMID: 28539111 Free PMC article.
-
Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 7;10(10):MR000045. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000045.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. PMID: 33026107 Free PMC article.
-
Volunteer experiences and perceptions of the informed consent process: Lessons from two HIV clinical trials in Uganda.BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Dec 3;16(1):86. doi: 10.1186/s12910-015-0073-1. BMC Med Ethics. 2015. PMID: 26630924 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Trial participation as avoidance strategy: a qualitative study.Health Expect. 2016 Dec;19(6):1346-1354. doi: 10.1111/hex.12437. Epub 2016 Jan 5. Health Expect. 2016. PMID: 26730890 Free PMC article.
-
Publishing protocols for trials of complex interventions before trial completion - potential pitfalls, solutions and the need for public debate.Trials. 2017 Jan 9;18(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1757-7. Trials. 2017. PMID: 28069042 Free PMC article.
-
Information about dissemination of trial results in patient information leaflets for clinicals trials in the UK and Ireland: The what and the when.PLoS One. 2022 May 24;17(5):e0268898. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268898. eCollection 2022. PLoS One. 2022. PMID: 35609047 Free PMC article.
-
Informed consent and risk communication challenges in antimicrobial clinical trials: a scoping review.BMJ Open. 2024 Nov 24;14(11):e082096. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082096. BMJ Open. 2024. PMID: 39581733 Free PMC article.
-
Trials need participants but not their feedback? A scoping review of published papers on the measurement of participant experience of taking part in clinical trials.Trials. 2019 Jun 24;20(1):381. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3444-y. Trials. 2019. PMID: 31234945 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Beauchamp TL. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th edn New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
-
- Horng S, Grady C. Misunderstanding in clinical research: distinguishing therapeutic misconception, therapeutic misestimation, & therapeutic optimism. IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 2003; 25: 11–16. - PubMed
-
- Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW et al False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Center Report, 1987; 17: 20–24. - PubMed
-
- McCann SK, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA. Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self. Trials, 2010; 11: 31. doi:10.1186/1745‐6215‐11‐31. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Dixon‐Woods M, Tarrant C. Why do people cooperate with medical research? Findings from three studies. Social Science & Medicine, 2009; 68: 2215–2222. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical