OBJECTIVE: To explore parental perceptions of the consenting process and understanding of the study in a pilot randomised controlled trial wherein extremely premature infants (<29 weeks\' gestation) were recruited either antenatally or by 4 h of life.
METHODS: We prospectively surveyed parents who had consented, declined consent or were eligible infants in the Positioning Preterm Infants for Neuroprotection study, a low-risk intervention study in the first 72 h of life. Structured interview questions explored the process and acceptability of the consenting approach by the parents and their knowledge of the study. Additional comments made by the parents were transcribed verbatim.
RESULTS: Sixty-two parents participated in the surveys; of those, 41 had provided their consent, 8 declined consent and 13 were parents of missed eligible infants. Overall, most parents reported they understood the study well before providing their consent and approaching them for consenting did not create a burden for them. A verbal explanation of the study by the study team, especially by the medical practitioners, was viewed as beneficial. Where consent was obtained in the birthing unit (imminent births and within 4 h of birthing), it was suggested that the 4-h period for obtaining post-natal consent may be too short. A deferred consent with a follow-up opportunity for obtaining informed consent could be a suitable alternative.
CONCLUSIONS: Parents found the consenting process acceptable and indicated they had sufficient understanding of the study to provide an informed consent. Deferred consent should be explored for future, low-risk intervention studies as an alternative to prospective consent where extremely preterm infants need to be recruited in the immediate neonatal period.

UNASSIGNED: Implementation science presents ethical issues not well addressed by traditional research ethics frameworks. There is little empirical work examining how clinicians whose work is affected by implementation studies view these issues. Accordingly, we interviewed clinicians working at sites participating in an implementation study seeking to improve patient handoffs to the intensive care unit (ICU).
UNASSIGNED: We performed semi-structured interviews with 32 clinicians working at sites participating in an implementation study aiming to improve patient handoffs from the operating room to the ICU. We analyzed the interviews using an iterative coding process following a conventional content analysis approach.
UNASSIGNED: Clinicians\' greatest concern about involvement was possible damage to interpersonal relations with more senior clinicians. They were divided about whether informed consent from clinicians was necessary but were satisfied with the study\'s approach of sending out mass communications about the study. They did not think opting out of the implementation portion of the study was feasible but saw this inability to opt out as unproblematic because they equated the study with routine quality improvement. Those clinicians who helped launch the study at their sites recounted several different ways of doing so beyond simply facilitating access.
UNASSIGNED: The risks that clinicians identified stemmed more from their general status as employees than their specific work as clinicians. Implementation researchers should be attuned to the ethical ramifications of involving employees of varying ranks. Implementation researchers using hybrid designs should also be sensitive to the possibility that practitioners affected by a study will equate it with quality improvement and overlook its research component. Finally, the interactions that go into facilitating an implementation study are more various than the \"gatekeeping\" typically discussed by research ethicists. More research is needed on the ethics of the myriad interactions that are involved in making implementation studies happen.

BACKGROUND: This paper explores the feasibility of establishing a large-scale population-based cohort and biobank in Switzerland by assessing potential participants\' needs, expectations, and concerns about such an infrastructure providing information on health, lifestyle, and exposure trajectories, the development of disease, and risk factors over time.
METHODS: We utilized a scenario-based questionnaire in the Swiss Health Study pilot phase (2020-2021), involving 1349 adults aged 20-69 from the cantons Vaud and Bern. We conducted descriptive statistics supported by R and qualitative content analysis of n = 374 open responses related to attitudes towards research.
RESULTS: We highlight the benefits and challenges of the scenario-based approach, discuss the sample represented in the pilot phase, and present implications for building a full cohort. We also report on participants\' attitudes towards and previous experience with health research. We analyze references regarding informed consent and feedback, attitudes towards the Swiss Health Study, and recommendations on improving its scope, design, and instruments. Results indicate a high interest (90%) in participating in a national health study, with 85% of a random population sample willing to join a long-term cohort. Only 43% were familiar with biobanks, and 44% preferred general consent. Trust was high for Swiss-based public research but lower for researchers from other countries or private sector. Over 95% expressed willingness to complete online questionnaires, undergo physical examination, and donate biosamples. Almost all participants wanted to know the outcomes of the medical tests (99.5%) and the exposure to environmental stressors (95%) from their study center visit. Preferred tools for monitoring sleep, physical activity, and diet were known smartphone apps with automatic data management.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the study reveals a positive attitude towards personalized health research, with a strong willingness to share data and samples. Key insights focus the meaning of informed consent for participation, the relevance of sampling and representativeness, as well as the significance and challenges of personalized feedback, especially regarding environmental health concerns. Findings emphasize participants\' supportive yet reflexive stances, underscoring the importance of aligning research values with individual values in personalized health research. These insights contribute valuable considerations for refining the scope, design, and instruments of future cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: In Europe, within the scope of the General Data Protection Regulation, more and more digital infrastructures are created to allow for large-scale access to patients\' health data and their use for research. When the research is performed on the basis of patient consent, traditional study-specific consent appears too cumbersome for many researchers. Alternative models of consent are currently being discussed and introduced in different contexts.
OBJECTIVE: This study explores stakeholder perspectives on ethical, legal, and practical concerns regarding models of consent for health data research at German university medical centers.
METHODS: Semistructured focus group interviews were conducted with medical researchers at German university medical centers, health IT specialists, data protection officers, and patient representatives. The interviews were analyzed using a software-supported structuring qualitative content analysis.
RESULTS: Stakeholders regarded broad consent to be only marginally less laborious to implement and manage than tiered consent. Patient representatives favored specific consent, with tiered consent as a possible alternative. All stakeholders lamented that information material was difficult to understand. Oral information and videos were mentioned as a means of improvement. Patient representatives doubted that researchers had a sufficient degree of data security expertise to act as sole information providers. They were afraid of undue pressure if obtaining health data research consent were part of medical appointments. IT specialists and other stakeholders regarded the withdrawal of consent to be a major challenge and called for digital consent management solutions. On the one hand, the transfer of health data to non-European countries and for-profit organizations is seen as a necessity for research. On the other hand, there are data security concerns with regard to these actors. Research without consent is legally possible under certain conditions but deemed problematic by all stakeholder groups, albeit for differing reasons and to different degrees.
CONCLUSIONS: More efforts should be made to determine which options of choice should be included in health data research consent. Digital tools could improve patient information and facilitate consent management. A unified and strict regulation for research without consent is required at the national and European Union level. Obtaining consent for health data research should be independent of medical appointments, and additional personnel should be trained in data security to provide information on health data research.

BACKGROUND: Electronic informed consent (eConsent) usage has expanded in recent years in Europe, especially during the pandemic. Slow recruitment rate and limitations in participant outreach are the challenges often faced in clinical research. Given the benefits of eConsent and group counselling reported in the literature, group eConsent was implemented in recruitment for the SWITCH-ON study. We aim to explore the experience of participants who attended group eConsent for the SWITCH-ON study and evaluate its potential for future use.
METHODS: SWITCH-ON study aims to analyse the immunogenicity of a healthy population following bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccination. Four hundred thirty-four healthcare workers aged 18-65 were successfully recruited and sent a questionnaire about their experience with group eConsent. Out of 399 completed questionnaires (response rate 92%), 39 participants did not join group eConsent. The remaining 360 responses were included in the final analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were reported using descriptive statistical analysis and thematic analysis respectively.
RESULTS: Participants found that group eConsent was an efficient method that it allowed them to hear each other\'s questions and concerns and created a sense of togetherness. However, limited privacy, barriers to asking questions in a group, and peer pressure can limit the use of group eConsent. One hundred sixty-five (46%) participants thought that group eConsent was suitable to recruit participants with diseases or conditions, while 87 (24%) reported limitations with this method. The remaining participants suggested that applicability of group eConsent depended on the diseases or conditions of the study population, and one-to-one conversation should always be available. Participants who had experienced both one-to-one and group eConsent shared different preferred consent formats for future studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Group eConsent was positively evaluated by the participants of a low-risk vaccination study. Participants advised using webinars to provide general information about the study, followed by an individual session for each participant, would retain the benefits of group eConsent and minimise the limitations it posed. This proposed setting addresses privacy questions and makes group eConsent easier to implement.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05471440 (registered on 22nd of July, 2022).

BACKGROUND: This study aims to investigate the integration of modern sources of patient information, such as videos, internet-based resources, and scientific abstracts, into the traditional patient informed consent process in outpatient elective surgeries. The goal is to optimize the informed consent experience, enhance patient satisfaction, and promote shared decision making (SDM) between patients and surgeons. By exploring different patient informed consent formats and their impact on patient satisfaction, this research seeks to improve healthcare practices and ultimately enhance patient outcomes. The findings of this study will contribute to the ongoing efforts to improve the informed consent process in public hospitals and advance patient-centred care.
METHODS: Data collection occurred at the day care clinic of a prominent German public hospital, forming an integral component of a prospective clinical investigation. The study exclusively focused on individuals who had undergone surgical intervention for skin cancer. For the purpose of meticulous data examination, the statistical software SPSS version 21 was harnessed. In the course of this study, a chi-square test was aptly employed. Its purpose was to scrutinize the nuances in patient experiences pertaining to informed consent across four distinct categories, viz., oral informed consent discussion (Oral ICD), written informed consent discussion (Written ICD), video-assisted informed consent discussion (video-assisted ICD), and digitally assisted informed consent discussion (digital-assisted ICD). The primary dataset of this inquiry was diligently gathered via a structured questionnaire administered to a targeted cohort of 160 patients. Within this sample, a balanced representation of genders was observed, encompassing 82 males and 78 females. Their collective age span ranged from 18 to 92 years, with an average age of 71 years. A randomized selection methodology was employed to include participants in this study during the period spanning from July 2017 to August 2018.
RESULTS: Significant differences were observed across the groups for all research questions, highlighting variations in patient responses. Video-assisted and digital-assisted IC were rated as superior in patient satisfaction with information compared to written and oral IC. Demographic profiles of the four study groups were found to be comparable.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study indicate that the incorporation of digital technologies in the informed consent process can enhance patient understanding during outpatient elective skin cancer surgeries. These results have important implications for increasing patient satisfaction and improving the SDM process within the hospital environment.

OBJECTIVE: We attempted to conduct a randomized controlled trial of three different informed consent training formats to evaluate their effectiveness. We recruited 503 clinical research professionals, who received $50 for participation. Incidental findings showed unexpectedly low rates of compliance with completing the study training protocols, resulting in insufficient statistical power to test our original hypotheses. In this report, we conducted a secondary analysis of the data in which we characterize and evaluate the observed low compliance. This involved using literature on average reading times, speed-reading times, and video play speeds to calculate the timeframes required to complete the three training formats.
RESULTS: Only 13% of participants completed the training in a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, only 46% of participants completed the training in the minimum possible timeframe. These findings lead us to ask whether online research training is effective, since no training can be effective if participants do not actually complete the training. Given extensive requirements for educational training among clinical research professionals, we feel the burden of proof is on training programs to demonstrate that they have positive effects.

This paper discusses the importance of return of clinical trial data to patients in the context of the FACILITATE project that aims to develop a participant-centric approach for the systematic return of individual clinical trial data. It reflects on the need for an ethical framework to support the return of clinical trial data. The discussion revolves around the developing FACILITATE ethical framework, specifically focusing on the ethical principles that form the foundation of the framework and guidance on how to implement those principles into practice.

BACKGROUND: The informed consent process is an important step in conducting ethical clinical trials, as it ensures that research participants are aware of their rights and responsibilities in clinical trials. This study explored participants\' perceptions, experiences and the factors motivating their participation in a COVID-19 vaccine trial in South Africa.
METHODS: This descriptive qualitative study was conducted among twenty-five adult participants (18 to 64 years old) who participated in a COVID-19 vaccine trial in South Africa. Three focus group discussions and fifteen semi-structured interviews were carried out. Data were collected at a Clinical Research Site located in Prince Mshiyeni Memorial Hospital, in Umlazi Township, Durban, South Africa, where the COVID-19 vaccine trial participants were initially enrolled. Data were analysed iteratively using a thematic analysis approach.
RESULTS: Four key findings emerged: 1) Participants who experienced an event (such as tested positive for COVID-19) during the clinical trial were more likely to talk about the informed consent more thoroughly compared to the other participants. 2) Participants understood the purpose of informed consent process better when it was repeated multiple times throughout the course of the trial. 3) Where participants did not recall or understand various elements of the informed consent, participants were likely to create their own interpretations. 4) Factors influencing participations in trials were reimbursement for participation, access to health care, protection of family members, and ability to socialize without fear of COVID-19.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the findings show that the informed consent process should be regarded as an ongoing process rather than a once-off event that only happens at the start of a clinical trial. An understanding of participants\' perspectives, experiences, and motivations for participating in clinical trials, can help trial staff strengthen the consent documents and processes.

UNASSIGNED: In Italy, the law n. 219/2017 regarding informed consent states that \"Communication time between doctor and patient constitutes treatment time\". Legal guardian is designated as a proxy to consent on the child\'s behalf. The issue of proxy informed consent should be approached with a model for parent-child decision-making that is participatory, collaborative, respects and supports the autonomy of child by recognizing their evolving capacities. We aim to assess the informed consent related to healthcare decisions for medically fragile child, using the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T).
UNASSIGNED: An observational study has been conducted at a Child Neuropsychiatry Service, administering a semi-structured interview with customized questionnaire to examine their capacities in four areas of the MacCAT-T. Results were evaluated with the Pearson correlation coefficient for the cognitive and adaptive levels of the Wechsler-Intelligence-Scale-for-Children (WISC-IV) and the Vineland-Adaptive-Behavior-Scales-II (VABS-II).
UNASSIGNED: The MacCAT-T domains Understanding, Appreciation, Reasoning, Expressing a Choice were correlated with the cognitive and adaptive levels of the WISC-IV and the VABS-II. Understanding, Appreciation and Expressing a choice have positive correlation with the Communication and Socialization scores of VABS-II; Reasoning has positive correlation with the Working-Memory-Index scores of the WISC-IV. The study enabled to assess the informed consent processes in vulnerable children and although demonstrating how they participate in their care process in a mostly unconscious way, making the frail children more involved in their own care process was possible. Future studies should assess the impact of incorporating MacCAT-T into standard informed consent in other settings.