Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jan-Mar;12(1):1-11.
doi: 10.1080/23294515.2020.1823907. Epub 2020 Sep 26.

Participant Reactions to a Literacy-Focused, Web-Based Informed Consent Approach for a Genomic Implementation Study

Affiliations

Participant Reactions to a Literacy-Focused, Web-Based Informed Consent Approach for a Genomic Implementation Study

Stephanie A Kraft et al. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2021 Jan-Mar.

Abstract

Clinical genomic implementation studies pose challenges for informed consent. Consent forms often include complex language and concepts, which can be a barrier to diverse enrollment, and these studies often blur traditional research-clinical boundaries. There is a move toward self-directed, web-based research enrollment, but more evidence is needed about how these enrollment approaches work in practice. In this study, we developed and evaluated a literacy-focused, web-based consent approach to support enrollment of diverse participants in an ongoing clinical genomic implementation study. Methods: As part of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study, we developed a web-based consent approach that featured plain language, multimedia, and separate descriptions of clinical care and research activities. CHARM offered clinical exome sequencing to individuals at high risk of hereditary cancer. We interviewed CHARM participants about their reactions to the consent approach. We audio recorded, transcribed, and coded interviews using a deductively and inductively derived codebook. We reviewed coded excerpts as a team to identify overarching themes. Results: We conducted 32 interviews, including 12 (38%) in Spanish. Most (69%) enrolled without assistance from study staff, usually on a mobile phone. Those who completed enrollment in one day spent an average of 12 minutes on the consent portion. Interviewees found the information simple to read but comprehensive, were neutral to positive about the multimedia support, and identified increased access to testing in the study as the key difference from clinical care. Conclusions: This study showed that interviewees found our literacy-focused, web-based consent approach acceptable; did not distinguish the consent materials from other online study processes; and valued getting access to testing in the study. Overall, conducting empirical bioethics research in an ongoing clinical trial was useful to demonstrate the acceptability of our novel consent approach but posed practical challenges.

Keywords: Interview; bioethics; informed consent; multimedia; qualitative research; understanding.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
CHARM screening and enrollment process
Figure 2
Figure 2
a-c. Screenshots from part 1: “A Test That Can Tell You More About Your Chance of Getting Cancer d-e. Screenshots from part 2: “Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) Study”

References

    1. All of Us Research Program Investigators, Denny JC, Rutter JL, Goldstein DB, Philippakis A, Smoller JW, Jenkins G, and Dishman E. 2019. The “All of Us” Research Program. New England Journal of Medicine 381: 668–676 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Amendola LM, Berg JS, Horowitz CR, Angelo F, Bensen JT, Biesecker BB, Biesecker LG, et al. 2018. The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium: Integrating genomic sequencing in diverse and medically underserved populations. American Journal of Human Genetics 103: 319–327. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bellcross C, Hermstad A, Tallo C, and Stanislaw C. 2019. Validation of version 3.0 of the Breast Cancer Genetics Referral Screening Tool (B-RST). Genetics in Medicine 21: 181–184. - PubMed
    1. Cadigan RJ, Butterfield R, Rini C, Waltz M, Kuczynski KJ, Muessig K, Goddard KAB, and Henderson GE. 2017. Online education and e-consent for GeneScreen, a preventive genomic screening study. Public Health Genomics 20: 235–246. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Charmaz K 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources