In 2019, the revised Common Rule required informed consent documents for research to include a statement about whether clinically relevant research results would be returned to research participants. While there are national discussions regarding the return of results, these do not provide specific guidance about how institutional review boards (IRBs) should address this issue. Through a year-long process involving IRB staff and leadership, science and bioethics faculty members, community IRB members, and others, Indiana University\'s human research protection program created a framework that offers a clear categorization of types of results for researchers to consider returning, provides language for informed consent documents, and describes an active but intentionally limited role for the IRB. In this article, we describe this framework and its rationale as a model for other universities and, more generally, as a model for balancing the need to protect human subjects with efforts to limit the burdens on researchers and the IRB.

UNASSIGNED: Research on human participants requires formal approval from a competent ethics committee. During the recruitment of the research participants, obtaining informed consent is a prerequisite. The online survey method is used by many researchers as it can collect the data from a diverse population in a short time.
UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to observe the characteristics and adherence to prevalent guidelines (set by the Indian Council of Medical Research [ICMR]) of informed consent coupled with online surveys.
UNASSIGNED: We collected the informed consent text from online survey links obtained from a network of colleagues who got a request to participate in a survey. Data were collected from July 2020 to June 2022. The text was anonymized for further analysis. The word count, sentences, and Flesch reading ease score were calculated. The adherence to ICMR guidelines where checked by two authors individually and a consensus was reached to prepare the final result.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 44 online surveys in English were audited and among them, 10 did not have informed consent. The informed consent in 34 surveys had a median of 6 sentences and 84 words. The median reading ease score was 45.7 (college level). The majority of the consent states the purpose of the research (91.18%), the voluntary nature of the participation (85.29%), and mentioned that it is research (64.71%). However, the rest of the components are ignored by the majority of the survey consent form.
UNASSIGNED: Informed consent form with online surveys lacks adherence to the components suggested by ICMR. Hence, the forms should be made carefully by the researchers so that the vigor of informed consent is maintained in the online surveys.

暂无摘要。

Information to be included in advance informed consent forms for health care-associated pneumonia treatment trials remains to be determined.
To identify and determine how to describe information to be included in an advance informed consent form for an early-enrollment noninferiority hospital-acquired and/or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) clinical trial.
A Delphi consensus process with stakeholders in HABP/VABP clinical trials was conducted using qualitative semistructured telephone interviews from June to August 2016, followed by 2 online surveys, the first from April to May 2017, and the second from September to October 2017. All stakeholders who participated in the interview were invited to participate in the first survey. Stakeholders who participated in the first survey were invited to participate in the second survey. Stakeholders were patients at risk of pneumonia, caregivers, representatives of institutional review boards, investigators, and study coordinators.
Description and consensus of information to be included in advance informed consent forms for early enrollment in noninferiority HABP/VABP clinical trials.
Suggestions from 52 stakeholders about what key informed consent concepts to include and how to explain them were used to create 3 categories to be included in an advance consent form: (1) reassurances on patient health and treatment, (2) rationale for advance consent and early enrollment, and (3) an explanation of noninferiority. At the end of the Delphi process, at least 80% consensus was reached among the 40 stakeholders who participated in the second online survey on each of the statements to include in the proposed consent text. Throughout the process, however, describing and reaching consensus on statements about noninferiority was more problematic than the other categories.
The stakeholders endorsed consent language to be used in combination with a strategy for enrolling patients at highest risk for pneumonia before infection onset. Data-driven consent language may help potential participants make informed decisions about their involvement in clinical research and improve enrollment rates, which are necessary to evaluate new treatments and improve patient care. The proposed consent language may be adapted for other trials using an early enrollment strategy and for noninferiority trials.

As informed consent documents have historically gotten lengthier, recent revisions to federal Common Rule guidelines now require consent forms that are \"concise\" and presented in ways that \"facilitate comprehension.\" The current research sought to apply these guidelines by developing a consent process for an online study that was only 71 words and also allowed participants a choice to either continue directly to the study or learn more about the study to which they were consenting. All participants (100%, N = 429) decided to continue directly to the study, choosing to forgo additional information about the study and the institutional review board (IRB) approval process. Participants indicated they liked this streamlined consent process, even though on average they only comprehended about half of the information this streamlined process contained. A plurality of participants indicated they would like to see this style of streamlined consent continued in future online studies. However, if we want to continue referring to informed consent as informed, future research should be welcomed and supported by IRBs to seek ways to apply the newest Common Rule guidelines while increasing comprehension; otherwise, informed consent will likely always remain an oxymoron.

The safe sedation of children for procedures requires a systematic approach that includes the following: no administration of sedating medication without the safety net of medical/dental supervision, careful presedation evaluation for underlying medical or surgical conditions that would place the child at increased risk from sedating medications, appropriate fasting for elective procedures and a balance between the depth of sedation and risk for those who are unable to fast because of the urgent nature of the procedure, a focused airway examination for large (kissing) tonsils or anatomic airway abnormalities that might increase thepotential for airway obstruction, a clear understanding of the medication\'s pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects and drug interactions, appropriate training and skills in airway management to allow rescue of the patient, age- and size-appropriate equipment for airway management and venous access, appropriate medications and reversal agents, sufficient numbers of staff to both carry out the procedure and monitor the patient, appropriate physiologic monitoring during and after the procedure, a properly equipped and staffed recovery area, recovery to the presedation level of consciousness before discharge from medical/dental supervision, and appropriate discharge instructions. This report was developed through a collaborative effort of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry to offer pediatric providers updated information and guidance in delivering safe sedation to children.

Within the context of the SFGM-TC\'s 6th workshop series on the harmonization of clinical practices, our workshop proposes a standardization of the informed consent process for hematopoietic stem cell donors and recipients leading up to an autologous or allogenic transplantation. All informed consent was for bone marrow or peripheral stem cell donors, and mononuclear/lymphocyte donors according to usual procedures. The informed consent for autologous and allogenic related or unrelated adults and pediatric transplantation patients have been included. A first step has been conducted for collecting in advance the informed consent forms used routinely in all francophone transplantation centers. In a second step, a comprehensive version has been re-written by a multidisciplinary team. For the purposes of understanding the risks and advantages, language has been carefully considered and streamlined. In the third step, texts were sent to stem cell transplantation experts, experts at the French biomedical agency (agence de la biomédecine [ABM]), law specialists, members of the ethical committee of the French society of hematology and several transplant recipients to be edited and proofread.

The quality of informed consent forms (ICFs) remains an issue in clinical research. The lengthy and complicated ICFs currently being used lower research participants\' ability to read and understand the information provided therein. In collaboration with the Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review (SIDCER), we have developed the SIDCER ICF, which could be of value in improving the quality of the ICFs. The three principles underlying the SIDCER ICF were: (i) an ICF contains all the required regulatory elements; (ii) an ICF provides only such information as is relevant for the subject\'s decision-making; and (iii) an ICF presents information in a simple format that conveys relevant information to the target population. The SIDCER ICF template, with its instructions, was then structured to assist an investigator in developing an enhanced ICF according to the three principles. The applicability of the SIDCER ICF was tested using a phase I study protocol, and a variety of experts with a special interest in ethics and clinical research were invited to evaluate the comprehensiveness of the three-page ICF for the phase I study. The SIDCER ICF template was refined and finalised in accordance with the results and comments from the experts.

Children and adults with dementia are vulnerable populations. Both groups are also relatively seldom included in biomedical research. However, including them in clinical trials is necessary, since both groups are in need of scientific innovation and new therapies. Their dependence and limited decision-making capacities increase their vulnerability, necessitating extra precautions when including them in clinical trials. Beside these similarities there are also many differences between the groups. The most obvious one is that children have an entire life ahead of them and will become persons with certain ideals and preferences, while adults with dementia have lived a life in which they have expressed their ideals and preferences. Some of the available research guidelines recognize these differences, setting one list of specific requirements for groups of incapacitated adults and another list for children. Other documents, however, do not differentiate and only set requirements for subjects unable to consent as a single category of subjects. In this article we analyse to what extent the similarities and differences between the two groups are represented in legal documents and ethical guidelines. The article presents an overview and an analysis of the requirements for doing research with children and dementia patients. We conclude with suggestions about how to better incorporate the morally relevant aspects of these two groups in legislation and ethical guidelines.

暂无摘要。