Consent Forms

同意书
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:医疗知情同意是任何医疗干预之前的道德和法律必要条件。住院患者在处理知情同意书(ICF)时面临功能健康素养(FHL)挑战。ICF和知情同意程序在中国的合法性仍未披露。该研究的目的是调查中国患者在提供医疗同意之前是否有足够的FHL被真正告知。
    方法:在此横截面中,结构化访谈为基础的研究,在汕头大学医学院附属的两家教学医院(1500张病床的综合三级医院和700张病床的癌症医院)的知情同意情况下评估了FHL。跨临床科室收治的27名患者,连同他们的亲戚(n=59),在获得知情同意后被纳入研究。参与者进行了三步评估,包括两个选定的ICF-背授技能,感知理解(感知),和知情知识(认知),每个组件的最大分数为10。用SPSS(22.0版)对数据进行描述性和推断性统计分析,考虑到显著的P值<0.05。
    结果:参与者的中位年龄(IQR和范围)为35.5岁(28-49岁和13-74岁)。大多数参与者只有高中文化程度(24.4%,21/86)或高中以下学历(47.7%,41/86)。FHL评估-回教的中位数得分(IQR),感知,和认知-为4.0(2.5,5.8),8.0(6.8,8.8),和6.5(5.5,8.0)的10,分别。认知得分与回授得分(r=0.359,P=0.002)或感知得分(r=0.437,P<0.001)之间存在中等相关性。多元线性回归分析预测患者和受教育程度较低是FHL不足的独立危险因素(Ps=0.001)。ICF中缺乏以患者为中心的观点,时间限制,不良的临床沟通被认为是阻碍知情同意的障碍.
    结论:这项研究表明个人FHL和受损的组织HL不足,导致中国教学医院知情同意受损。作为一种补救措施,我们建议提高ICFs的质量,并在所有相关临床医生的知情同意方面进行机构授权的以结果为重点的培训,以提高医学伦理学,确保高质量的医疗保健,解决患者价值,缓解潜在的医疗冲突。
    BACKGROUND: Medical informed consent stands as an ethical and legal requisite preceding any medical intervention. Hospitalized patients face functional health literacy (FHL) challenges when dealing with informed consent forms (ICFs). The legitimacy of ICFs and informed consent procedures in China remains substantially undisclosed. The study\'s aim was to investigate if Chinese patients have adequate FHL to be truly informed before providing medical consent.
    METHODS: In this cross-sectional, structured interview-based study, FHL was assessed within the context of the informed consent scenarios in two teaching hospitals (a 1500-bed general tertiary hospital and a 700-bed cancer hospital) affiliated with Shantou University Medical College. Twenty-seven patients admitted across clinical departments, along with their relatives (n = 59), were enrolled in the study after obtaining informed consent. The participants underwent a three-step assessment with two selected ICFs -teach-back skills, perceived understanding (perception), and informed knowledge (cognizance), with each component carrying a maximum score of 10. Data were analyzed with SPSS (version 22.0) for descriptive and inferential statistics, with consideration of significant P values as < 0.05.
    RESULTS: The median age (IQR and range) of participants was 35.5 (28 - 49 and 13 - 74) years. Most participants had only high school education (24.4%, 21/86) or below high school education (47.7%, 41/86). The median score (IQR) of FHL assessments-teach-back, perception, and cognizance-was 4.0 (2.5, 5.8), 8.0 (6.8, 8.8), and 6.5 (5.5, 8.0) out of 10, respectively. A moderate correlation was observed between the scores of cognizance and teach-back (r = 0.359, P = 0.002) or perception (r = 0.437, P < 0.001). Multivariate linear regression analysis predicted being a patient and having lower education levels as independent risk factors of inadequate FHL (Ps = 0.001). Lack of patient-centeredness in ICFs, time constraints, and poor clinical communication were identified as barriers impeding informed consent.
    CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates inadequacy in personal FHL and impaired organizational HL, resulting in compromised informed consent in Chinese teaching hospitals. As a remedy, we propose improving the quality of ICFs and institutionally mandated outcome-focused training on informed consent for all concerned clinicians to enhance medical ethics, ensure quality health care, address patient values, and mitigate potential medical conflicts.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    我们提供了一个基于网络的NLP工具,以帮助用户理解西班牙语的同意书(CFs)和临床试验公告(CTA)。对于复杂的单词识别,我们收集了:1)技术术语和简化同义词的词典(14465个条目);和2)词汇表(70547个术语),解释来自UMLS等来源,NCI词典,Orphadata或FDA。为了发展,我们从60个CTA中提取实体,60CFs和60患者信息文档(PID)。为新术语准备定义,我们使用了ChatGPT,专家对其进行了验证(28.99%需要修复).我们在15个新的CTA上测试了这个系统,15CFs,和15个PID,我们的F1平均得分为82.91%(严格比赛)和94.65%(放松)。该工具可在http://claramed上获得。csic.ES/演示。
    We present an NLP web-based tool to help users understand consent forms (CFs) and clinical trial announcements (CTAs) in Spanish. For complex word identification, we collected: 1) a lexicon of technical terms and simplified synonyms (14 465 entries); and 2) a glossary (70 547 terms) with explanations from sources such as UMLS, the NCI dictionary, Orphadata or the FDA. For development, we extracted entities from 60 CTAs, 60 CFs and 60 patient information documents (PIDs). To prepare definitions for new terms, we used ChatGPT and experts validated them (28.99% needed to be fixed). We tested the system on 15 new CTAs, 15 CFs, and 15 PIDs, and we achieved an average F1 score of 82.91% (strict match) and of 94.65% (relaxed). The tool is available at: http://claramed.csic.es/demo.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    关于医疗纠纷诉讼,律师和保险公司关注知情同意文件。不幸的是,对于注射富血小板血浆(PRP)没有获得知情同意的标准方案.本研究的目的是创建一个预先设计的,专门用于PRP注射的循证知情同意书。获得了有关PRP注射的医学法律影响的当前证据,以及PRP注射中的一般知情同意和特别知情同意。此外,我们采用半结构化方法采访了骨科医师和过去1年接受PRP注射的患者.PRP注射的合法有效且基于证据的知情同意书可确保权利,鼓励患者和外科医生之间的公开沟通和透明度。此外,如果发生了诉讼,知情同意书将是外科医生辩护中的重要文件,可以承受律师和司法机构的审查。法律专家制定并审查了基于证据的PRP注射知情同意书,以确保遵守法律规定。PRP注射知情同意书的最终形式在我们的机构进行了一年的管理和验证。
    Regarding medico-legal malpractice suits, lawyers and insurers focus on informed consent documentation. Unfortunately, there is no standard protocol for obtaining informed consent for platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections. The objective of the present study was to create a pre-designed, evidence-based informed consent form specifically for PRP injections. The current evidence on the medico-legal implications of PRP injections was accessed, as well as informed consent in general and specifically informed consent in PRP injections. Additionally, we interviewed orthopaedic surgeons and patients who had undergone PRP injections in the past year using a semi-structured approach. A legally valid and evidence-based informed consent form for PRP injections ensures rights, encouraging open communication and transparency between the patient and surgeon. Moreover, if a lawsuit arose, informed consent would be a critical document in surgeons\' defence and would withstand scrutiny from lawyers and the judiciary. An evidence-based informed consent form for PRP injections was elaborated and reviewed by a legal expert to ensure adherence to legal proprieties. The final form of the informed consent for PRP injection was administered for one year and validated at our institution.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    这项横断面研究检查了美国国立卫生研究院资助的ClinicalTrials.gov试验的同意书的可用性。
    This cross-sectional study examines the availability of consent forms for National Institutes of Health–funded trials on ClinicalTrials.gov.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    我们的目标是描述发布知情同意书(ICF)的行业资助试验,并评估行业作为“赞助者”或“合作者”所扮演的角色是否会影响几个相关变量。在ClinicalTrials.gov上对2023年2月25日或之前注册的所有行业资助的试验进行了横断面研究。我们记录了干预的类型,目前的招聘状态,设计,招生,和参与的国家。对于潜在参与者和研究者和/或临床医生特别感兴趣的试验,对行业作为“赞助者”或“合作者”所扮演的角色进行了分析。在注册的116,281项行业资助的试验中,741(0.6%)发布了ICF。这些试验大多数被归类为“完成”(n=408)或“终止”(n=107)。对359项试验样本的审查显示,大多数是关于药物和/或生物制剂(59%),随机化(51%),仅在美国进行(72%),并公布了结果(79%),协议(92%),和统计分析计划(SAP)(89%)。当试验处于活跃状态时,行业作为“合作者”参与的试验更有可能发布ICF,与行业赞助的试验相比,未招募阶段(OR4.70,99.71%CI1.59-13.9,p<0.001)。在评估药物/生物制剂时也是如此(OR2.64,99.71%CI1.25-5.58,p<0.001)。相反,作为“赞助商”的公司更有可能发布带有试验评估设备的ICF,辐射干预和/或诊断测试(OR0.37,99.71%CI0.17-0.79,p<0.001)比作为“合作者”参与时。虽然行业资助的试验很少发布ICF,当他们这样做的时候,他们高度符合透明度要求。法规和道德守则应考虑要求发布协议,SAP,以及所有临床试验的ICFs,无论赞助商的类型。
    We aim to characterize industry-funded trials that have posted the informed consent forms (ICFs), and to assess whether the role played by industry as \'sponsor\' or \'collaborator\' could impact several relevant variables. A cross-sectional study was conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov on all industry-funded trials registered on or before 25 February 2023. We registered types of intervention, current recruitment status, design, enrollment, and countries involved. For trials with special interest to potential participants and investigators and/or clinicians an analysis of the role played by industry as \'sponsor\' or \'collaborator\' was performed. Of 116,281 industry-funded trials registered, 741 (0.6%) had posted ICFs. Most of these trials were categorized as \'completed\' (n = 408) or \'terminated\' (n = 107). The review of a sample of 359 trials showed that most were on drugs and/or biologics (59%), were randomized (51%), conducted exclusively in the USA (72%), and had posted results (79%), protocols (92%), and statistical analysis plans (SAPs) (89%). Trials in which industry participated as \'collaborator\' were significantly more likely to post ICFs when trials were in the \'active, not recruiting\' phase (OR 4.70, 99.71% CI 1.59-13.9, p < 0.001) than industry-sponsored trials. This was also the case when assessing drugs/biologics (OR 2.64, 99.71% CI 1.25-5.58, p < 0.001). Conversely, companies acting as \'sponsors\' were significantly more likely to post ICFs with trials assessing devices, radiation interventions and/or diagnostic tests (OR 0.37, 99.71% CI 0.17-0.79, p < 0.001) than when participating as \'collaborators\'. While industry-funded trials rarely post ICFs, when they do, they are highly compliant with transparency requirements. Regulations and ethics codes should consider requiring posting of protocols, SAPs, and ICFs for all clinical trials, regardless the type of sponsor.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:说英语以外的语言(LOE)的人在临床试验中的代表性不足;这可能部分是由于多层次资源不足。我们对附属于儿童肿瘤学小组(COG)的机构进行了一项调查,以描述当前关于翻译和口译服务的研究招募实践和资源。
    方法:2022年10月,一项20项调查以电子方式分发给COG附属机构,以评估招募COG试验参与者的同意做法和资源。描述性统计数据被用来总结反应;反应被按机构规模进行比较,type,和应答者的角色。
    结果:调查已发送给总共230个机构,有效率为60%(n=139)。总的来说,60%(n=83)获得了简短的形式同意书。50%的机构需要完整的同意书翻译,12%的机构审查委员会限制使用中央翻译的同意书。46%的机构报告说没有足够的资金来支持翻译费用;15%的机构可以获得免费的翻译服务。44%(n=61)需要使用当面口译员进行同意讨论;获得同意的最多障碍是缺乏当面口译员(56%)。46%(n=69)的人报告说招募讲LOE的人进行临床试验有些或非常困难。
    结论:与COG相关的机构面临资源特定的挑战,这阻碍了在临床试验中招募讲LOE的参与者。这些发现表明,迫切需要确定旨在减少招聘障碍的策略,以确保公平获得临床试验。
    BACKGROUND: Persons who speak languages other than English are underrepresented in clinical trials, likely in part because of inadequate multilevel resources. We conducted a survey of institutions affiliated with the Children\'s Oncology Group (COG) to characterize current research recruitment practices and resources regarding translation and interpretation services.
    METHODS: In October 2022, a 20-item survey was distributed electronically to institutions affiliated with COG to assess consent practices and resources for recruiting participants who speak languages other than English to COG trials. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses; responses were compared by institution size and type as well as respondent role.
    RESULTS: The survey was sent to 230 institutions, and the response rate was 60% (n = 139). In total, 60% (n = 83) of those respondents had access to short-form consent forms. Full consent form translation was required at 50% of institutions, and 12% of institutional review boards restricted use of centrally translated consent forms. Forty-six percent (n = 64) of institutions reported insufficient funding to support translation costs; 19% (n = 26) had access to no-cost translation services. Forty-four percent (n = 61) were required to use in-person interpreters for consent discussions; the most frequently cited barrier (56%) to obtaining consent was lack of available in-person interpreters. Forty-seven percent (n = 65) reported that recruiting persons who speak languages other than English to clinical trials was somewhat or very difficult.
    CONCLUSIONS: Institutions affiliated with COG face resource-specific challenges that impede recruitment of participants who speak languages other than English for clinical trials. These findings indicate an urgent need to identify strategies aimed at reducing recruitment barriers to ensure equitable access to clinical trials.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: English Abstract
    获得护理同意需要放射肿瘤科医生提供忠诚的信息并确保患者理解它。这种方法的证明取决于从业者。法国放射肿瘤学会(SFRO)不建议患者签署同意书,但建议放射肿瘤学家能够提供所有证明完整信息回路现实的要素。
    Obtaining consent to care requires the radiation oncologist to provide loyal information and to ensure that the patient understands it. Proof of such an approach rests with the practitioner. The French Society for Radiation Oncology (SFRO) does not recommend the signature of a consent form by the patient but recommends that the radiation oncologist be able to provide all the elements demonstrating the reality of a complete information circuit.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:Q-CEP(巴西国家研究伦理委员会(Conep))是一个全国性的项目,由巴西国家研究伦理委员会(Conep)之间的合作产生,卫生部和医院MoinhosdeVento(HMV)。它的制定是为了巩固CEP/Conep系统所有成员对人类研究进行伦理审查的政策,巴西国家机构审查委员会制度。因此,这项研究的目的是报告Q-CEP项目的经验和结果。
    方法:观察性,回顾性研究包括来自Q-CEP的数据,从访问该国所有机构研究伦理委员会(RECs)中获得。Q-CEP实施的行动是两步过程的一部分:(i)对每个REC进行培训访问;(ii)开发与研究道德评估有关的战略主题的远程学习模块。本文提供的数据涵盖第一步(培训访问),由Q-CEP定义为项目的诊断阶段。对于像巴西这样一个社会和经济不平等的国家来说,这是一个特别重要的阶段;需要对现实的准确描述来为质量改进策略的规划提供信息。
    结果:在2019-2021年,Q-CEP访问了832个REC,培训了11,197人。该样本涵盖了该国几乎所有活跃的REC;只有4个(0.5%)未进行评估。在评估的94个项目中,62%的人没有达到至少80%的目标,大约1/4(26%)的人低于50%的目标。该过程的诊断阶段揭示了REC在道德审查中的不足之处。对知情同意书的分析表明,只有131个REC(15.74%)符合。REC在其报告中对未决问题的描述符合19.33%(n=161)。超过一半的区域经济共同体也认为行政和业务方面不足。
    结论:总体而言,巴西RECs在运营的几个方面表现出较差的合规性,在道德评估和其他过程中,这证明了额外的培训。Q-CEP项目是巴西卫生部推动的质量改进政策的一部分。在该项目的诊断步骤中获得的数据为世界上最大的研究伦理评估系统之一的资格和巩固做出了贡献。
    BACKGROUND: Q-CEP (Qualificação dos Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa que compõem o Sistema CEP/Conep) is a nationwide project resulting from a partnership between the Brazilian National Research Ethics Commission (Conep), the Ministry of Health and Hospital Moinhos de Vento (HMV). It was developed to consolidate policy for ethical review of research with human beings in all members of the CEP/Conep System, Brazil\'s national system of institutional review boards. The aim of this study was therefore to report on the experience and results of the Q-CEP project.
    METHODS: An observational, retrospective study includes data from the Q-CEP, obtained from visits to all the institutional research ethics committees (RECs) in the country. The actions implemented by Q-CEP were part of a two-step process: (i) training visits to each REC; (ii) development of distance learning modules on strategic topics pertaining to research ethics evaluation. The data presented herein cover step one (training visits), defined by Q-CEP as the diagnostic stage of the project. For a country with social and economics inequalities such as Brazil, this is a particularly important stage; an accurate picture of reality is needed to inform planning of quality improvement strategies.
    RESULTS: In 2019-2021, Q-CEP visited 832 RECs and trained 11,197 people. This sample covered almost all active RECs in the country; only 4 (0.5%) were not evaluated. Of the 94 items evaluated, 62% did not reach the target of at least 80% compliance and around 1/4 (26%) were below 50% compliance. The diagnostic stage of the process revealed inadequacies on the part of the RECs in their ethical reviews. The analysis of informed consent forms showed compliance in only 131 RECs (15.74%). The description of pending issues made by RECs in their reports was compliant in 19.33% (n = 161). Administrative and operational aspects were also considered inadequate by more than half of the RECs.
    CONCLUSIONS: Overall, Brazilian RECs showed poor compliance in several aspects of their operation, both in ethics evaluation and in other processes, which justifies additional training. The Q-CEP project is part of a quality improvement policy promoted by the Brazilian Ministry of Health. The data obtained in the diagnostic step of the project have contributed to the qualification and consolidation of one of the world\'s largest research ethics evaluation systems.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    参与临床研究的一个障碍是读写能力低的患者(五分之一的美国成年人)可能难以理解知情同意书(ICD)。使用健康素养和简单语言指南(包括简化的语法和语义)编写同意书可以提高可理解性,并促进具有识字挑战的研究人群的包容性。我们的研究目的是评估简化的ICD的可理解性,同时考虑已知与理解相关的因素(阅读技能和工作记忆)。我们对佐治亚州192名18-77岁的成年人进行了在线调查。参与者在简化ICD测试中的表现明显更好。我们构建了一个具有所有版本x度量交互的附加模型(即,年龄,性别,种族,城市化,GMVT,WM).该模型没有显著提高模型拟合度,F<1.00,表明个体差异并没有缓和简化的影响。我们的发现表明,在ICD中使用简单的语言和简化的语法和语义作为普遍的预防措施,可以减轻成年人的认知阅读负担,而不管阅读技能或工作记忆的差异。提高ICD的可理解性可能有助于改善临床试验登记的目标。
    One barrier to participating in clinical research is that patients with low literacy skills (1 in 5 US adults) may struggle to understand the informed consent document (ICD). Writing consents using health literacy and plain language guidelines including simplified syntax and semantics can increase understandability and facilitate inclusivity of research populations with literacy challenges. Our study aim was to evaluate a simplified ICD for understandability while considering factors known to relate to comprehension (reading skills and working memory). We performed an on-line survey of 192 adults ages 18-77 in Georgia. Participants performed significantly better on the simplified ICD test. We built an additional model with all version x measure interactions (i.e., age, sex, race, urbanicity, GMVT, WM). This model did not significantly improve model fit, F < 1.00, suggesting that individual differences did not moderate the effect of simplification. Our findings suggest that using plain language and simplified syntax and semantics in ICD as a universal precaution may reduce cognitive reading burden for adults regardless of differences in reading skill or working memory. Increasing understandability in ICD may help improve targets for clinical trial enrollment.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    关于支付给研究参与者的经验数据有限。这种信息的缺乏限制了我们对实现招聘方面科学目标的付款有效性的理解,保留,和包容。我们对clinicaltrials.gov上提供的同意书和协议进行了内容分析,以确定研究人员提供的有关付款的信息。我们从公开发布同意书的clinicaltrials.gov上列出的HIV(n=101)和NIMH资助的研究(n=65)中提取了数据。使用清单内容分析方法,然后,我们从同意文件中编码了有关付款的语言,如果可用,支付目的和方法的协议。虽然不是我们最初计划分析的一部分,从我们对同意书语言的内容分析中得出的与税收相关的信息为研究人员的支付实践提供了更多见解.因此,我们还记录了付款部分是否提到了与付款有关的社会保障号码(或其他税号),以及是否对美国国税局或付款的税收状况做出了任何声明。我们发现研究通常提供付款,但没有区分付款的目的(即,补偿,报销,激励,或欣赏)。我们还发现,一些研究排除了一些参与者接受付款,或者与研究中的其他参与者区别对待。差别待遇通常与美国税法和其他法律要求有关。许多美国研究还讨论了根据美国税法收集社会保障号码和收入报告的必要性。总的来说,这些做法不利于一些参与者,可能会干扰进行更具包容性的研究的努力。
    Empirical data regarding payments to participants in research is limited. This lack of information constrains our understanding of the effectiveness of payments to achieve scientific goals with respect to recruitment, retention, and inclusion. We conducted a content analysis of consent forms and protocols available on clinicaltrials.gov to determine what information researchers provide regarding payment. We extracted data from HIV (n = 101) and NIMH-funded studies (n = 65) listed on clinicaltrials.gov that had publicly posted a consent form. Using a manifest content analysis approach, we then coded the language regarding payment from the consent document and, where available, protocol for purpose and method of the payment. Although not part of our original planned analysis, the tax-related information that emerged from our content analysis of the consent form language provided additional insights into researcher payment practices. Accordingly, we also recorded whether the payment section mentioned social security numbers (or other tax identification number) in connection with payments and whether it made any statements regarding the Internal Revenue Service or the tax status of payments. We found studies commonly offered payment, but did not distinguish between the purposes for which payment may be offered (i.e., compensation, reimbursement, incentive, or appreciation). We also found studies that excluded some participants from receiving payment or treated them differently from other participants in the study. Differential treatment was typically linked to US tax laws and other legal requirements. A number of US studies also discussed the need to collect Social Security numbers and income reporting based on US tax laws. Collectively, these practices disadvantage some participants and may interfere with efforts to conduct more inclusive research.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号