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
. 2024 Jan 18;14(1):e083239.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083239.

Evaluating the impact of a SIMPlified LaYered consent process on recruitment of potential participants to the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform trial: study protocol for a multicentre pragmatic nested randomised clinical trial (SIMPLY-SNAP trial)

Affiliations

Evaluating the impact of a SIMPlified LaYered consent process on recruitment of potential participants to the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform trial: study protocol for a multicentre pragmatic nested randomised clinical trial (SIMPLY-SNAP trial)

Sean W X Ong et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Introduction: Informed consent forms (ICFs) for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) can be onerous and lengthy. The process has the potential to overwhelm patients with information, leading them to miss elements of the study that are critical for an informed decision. Specifically, overly long and complicated ICFs have the potential to increase barriers to trial participation for patients with mild cognitive impairment, those who do not speak English as a first language or among those with lower medical literacy. In turn, this can influence trial recruitment, completion and external validity.

Methods and analysis: SIMPLY-SNAP is a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, two-arm parallel-group superiority RCT, nested within a larger trial, the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial. We will randomise potentially eligible participants of the SNAP trial 1:1 to a full-length ICF or a SIMPlified LaYered (SIMPLY) consent process where basic information is summarised with embedded hyperlinks to supplemental information and videos. The primary outcome is recruitment into the SNAP trial. Secondary outcomes include patient understanding of the clinical trial, patient and research staff satisfaction with the consent process, and time taken for consent. As an exploratory outcome, we will also compare measures of diversity (eg, gender, ethnicity), according to the consent process randomised to. The planned sample size will be 346 participants.

Ethics and dissemination: The study has been approved by the ethics review board (Sunnybrook Health Sciences Research Ethics Board) at sites in Ontario. We will disseminate study results via the SNAP trial group and other collaborating clinical trial networks.

Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT06168474; www.

Clinicaltrials: gov).

Keywords: Clinical Trial; Health Equity; INFECTIOUS DISEASES; MEDICAL ETHICS.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial flow diagram. 1This tool is adapted from existing instruments used in previous consent studies and comprises a variety of open-ended and closed-ended questions to measure participants’ understanding of the clinical trial they are enrolled in. 2Secondary outcomes (a) and (b) will be evaluated by a blinded assessor who was separate from the consent-taking process. ICU, intensive care unit.

Similar articles

References

    1. Wisgalla A, Hasford J. Four reasons why too many informed consents to clinical research are invalid: a critical analysis of current practices. BMJ Open 2022;12:e050543. 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050543 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beardsley E, Jefford M, Mileshkin L. Longer consent forms for clinical trials compromise patient understanding: so Why are they lengthening J Clin Oncol 2007;25:e13–4. 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.3341 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sharp SM. Consent documents for oncology trials: does anybody read these things Am J Clin Oncol 2004;27:570–5. 10.1097/01.coc.0000135925.83221.b3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sanchini V, Reni M, Calori G, et al. . Informed consent as an ethical requirement in clinical trials: an old, but still unresolved issue. An observational study to evaluate patient’s informed consent comprehension. J Med Ethics 2014;40:269–75. 10.1136/medethics-2012-101115 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Falagas ME, Korbila IP, Giannopoulou KP, et al. . Informed consent: how much and what do patients understand Am J Surg 2009;198:420–35. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.02.010 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data