BACKGROUND: Clinical trial participation for patients with non-curative cancer is unlikely to present personal clinical benefit, which raises the bar for informed consent. Previous work demonstrates that decisions by patients in this setting are made within a \'trusting relationship\' with healthcare professionals. The current study aimed to further illuminate the nuances of this relationship from both the patients\' and healthcare professionals\' perspectives.
METHODS: Face-to-face interviews using a grounded theory approach were conducted at a regional Cancer Centre in the United Kingdom. Interviews were performed with 34 participants (patients with non-curative cancer, number (n) = 16; healthcare professionals involved in the consent process, n = 18). Data analysis was performed after each interview using open, selective, and theoretical coding.
RESULTS: The \'Trusting relationship\' with healthcare professionals underpinned patient motivation to participate, with many patients \'feeling lucky\' and articulating an unrealistic hope that a clinical trial could provide a cure. Patients adopted the attitude of \'What the doctor thinks is best\' and placed significant trust in healthcare professionals, focusing on mainly positive aspects of the information provided. Healthcare professionals recognised that trial information was not received neutrally by patients, with some expressing concerns that patients would consent to \'please\' them. This raises the question: Within the trusting relationship between patients and healthcare professionals, \'Is it possible to provide balanced information?\'. The theoretical model identified in this study is central to understanding how the trusting professional-patient relationship influences the decision-making process.
CONCLUSIONS: The significant trust placed on healthcare professionals by patients presented an obstacle to delivering balanced trial information, with patients sometimes participating to please the \'experts\'. In this high-stakes scenario, it may be pertinent to consider strategies, such as separation of the clinician-researcher roles and enabling patients to articulate their care priorities and preferences within the informed consent process. Further research is needed to expand on these ethical conundrums and ensure patient choice and autonomy in trial participation are prioritised, particularly when the patient\'s life is limited.

Clinical trial regulations for new drugs in India released a gazette notification for obtaining audiovisual (AV) consent from all trial participants in November 2013. The reports of AV recordings of the studies from October 2013 to February 2017 submitted to the institutional ethics committee were analyzed in view of the Indian regulations on AV consenting. The reports of AV recording were checked: number of AV consents for each project, adequacy of AV recording, number of persons in the video, informed consent document elements (ICD) covered as per Schedule Y, confirmation of understanding by the participant, the time taken to complete the procedure, maintenance of confidentiality, and whether reconsent was taken. Seven studies of AV consent were monitored. Eighty-five (85) AV-consented and filled checklists were evaluated. The AV recording was not clear in 31/85, ICD elements were missing in 49/85 consents, time taken to complete the procedure was 20.03 ± 10.83 with the number of pages being 14.24 ± 7.52 (R= 0.29 p<0.041). In 19/85 consents, privacy was not maintained and on 22 occasions, reconsent were taken. There were deficits found in the AV consent process.

Data collected during routine health care and ensuing analytical results bear the potential to provide valuable information to improve the overall health care of patients. However, little is known about how patients prefer to be informed about the possible usage of their routine data and/or biosamples for research purposes before reaching a consent decision. Specifically, we investigated the setting, the timing and the responsible staff for the information and consent process.
We performed a quasi-randomized controlled trial and compared the method by which patients were informed either in the patient admission area following patient admission by the same staff member (Group A) or in a separate room by another staff member (Group B). The consent decision was hypothetical in nature. Additionally, we evaluated if there was the need for additional time after the information session and before taking the consent decision. Data were collected during a structured interview based on questionnaires where participants reflected on the information and consent process they went through.
Questionnaire data were obtained from 157 participants in Group A and 106 participants in Group B. Overall, participants in both groups were satisfied with their experienced process and with the way information was provided. They reported that their (hypothetical) consent decision was freely made. Approximately half of the interested participants in Group B did not show up in the separate room, while all interested participants in Group A could be informed about the secondary use of their routine data and left-over samples. No participants, except for one in Group B, wanted to take extra time for their consent decision. The hypothetical consent rate for both routine data and left-over samples was very high in both groups.
The willingness to support medical research by allowing the use of routine data and left-over samples seems to be widespread among patients. Information concerning this secondary data use may be given by trained administrative staff immediately following patient admission. Patients mainly prefer making a consent decision directly after information is provided and discussed. Furthermore, less patients are informed when the process is organized in a separate room.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent for any surgical intervention is necessary, as only well-informed patients can actively participate in the decision-making process about their care, and better understand the likely or potential outcomes of their treatment. No consensus exists on informed consent for suspension microlaryngoscopy (SML).
METHODS: Informed consent procedures in nine countries on five continents were studied.
RESULTS: Several risks can be discerned: risks of SML as procedure, anesthesiologic risks of SML, specific risks of phonosurgery, risks of inadequate glottic exposure or unexpected findings, risks of not treating. SML has recognized potential complications, that can be divided in temporary (minor) complications, and lasting (major) complications.
CONCLUSIONS: SML is a safe procedure with low morbidity, and virtually no mortality. Eleven recommendations are provided.

UNASSIGNED: Obtaining informed consents from older adults is surrounded by many ethical and practical challenges. The objective of this study was to evaluate ethical issues and strategies in consenting older adults in Jordan as perceived by academic researchers and older adults.
UNASSIGNED: An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to academic researchers in the Jordanian health sciences colleges, and a sample of older adults. The study survey included items eliciting demographics, professional characteristics, and perceptions regarding the consenting process in older adults, consent-related skills in elderly, and strategies to improve the consenting process in older adults. The survey was then modified to assess the consent-related ethical issues and challenges as viewed by a sample of older adults after explaining the concept of the consenting process to them.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 250 academic researchers and 233 older adults participated in the study. Both researchers and older adults reported that having to sign the written forms and the impact of age-related physical impairments were the most challenging obstacles when consenting older adults. Lack of consistency and repeating questions were the most frequently encountered obstacles by researchers in consenting older adults. Ensuring privacy (anonymity/confidentiality), dedicating more time for the consenting process, treating older adults as autonomous individuals and respecting their cultural beliefs were the most helpful strategies recommended by both academic researchers and older adults.
UNASSIGNED: Obtaining informed consents from older adults is a challenging process. Researchers should be aware of the special needs and strategies to achieve realistic and ethical informed consents from older adults.

Rapid Ethical Assessment (REA) is an approach used to design context tailored consent process for voluntary participation of participants in research including human subjects. There is, however, limited evidence on the design of ethical assessment in studies targeting cancer patients in Ethiopia. REA was conducted to explore factors that influence the informed consent process among female cancer patients recruited for longitudinal research from Addis Ababa Population-based Cancer Registry.
Qualitative study employing rapid ethnographic approach was conducted from May-July, 2017, at the Tikur Anbessa Specialized Referral Hospital. In-depth and key informants\' interviews were conducted among purposively selected 16 participants. Regular de-briefings among the study team helped to identify emerging themes and ensure saturation. Interviews and debriefings were tape recorded in Amharic, and transcribed and translated to English. Coding of the transcripts was facilitated by use of NVivo software. Thematic analysis was employed to respond to the initial questions and interpret findings.
Perceived barriers to voluntary study participation included lack of reporting back study results of previous studies, the decision making status of women, hopelessness or fatigue in the patients, shyness of the women, data collectors approach to the patient, and patient\'s time constraints. Most of the patients preferred oral over written consent and face-to-face interview over telephone interview. Provision of detail information about the study, using short and understandable tool, competent, compassionate and respectful enumerators of the same gender were suggested to assure participation. Due to the perceived severity, the use of the term \"cancer\" was associated with fear and anxiety. Alternatively, uses of phrases like \"breast or cervical illness/disease\" were suggested during patient interviews.
Voluntary participation is not straight forward but affected by different factors. Using competent, compassionate and respectful enumerators, short and precise questioning tools to limit the time of the interview could improve voluntary participation. Moreover, careful consideration of the patients and families concept of the disease such as wording and information has to be taken into account. This assessment helped in improving the consent process of the ongoing project on breast and cervical cancer patients.

Consent is generally required for research and sharing rich individual-level data but presents additional ethical and legal challenges where participants have diminished decision-making capacity. We formed a multi-disciplinary team to develop best practices for consent in data-intensive dementia research. We recommend that consent processes for research and data sharing support decision-making by persons with dementia, protect them from exploitation, and promote the common good. Broad consent designed to endure beyond a loss of capacity and combined with ongoing oversight can best achieve these goals. Persons with dementia should be supported to make decisions and enabled to express their will and preferences about participation in advance of a loss of capacity. Regulatory frameworks should clarify who can act as a representative for research decisions. By promoting harmonization of consent practices across institutions, sectors, and countries, we hope to facilitate data sharing to accelerate progress in dementia research, care, and prevention.

Research Ethics Committees are composed of a minimum of five members which include a lay person, a member from a different institution and at least another three members which should be versed in ethics. Legal and expert advisors can be sought by the committee. The REC will require a detailed protocol from the researcher including the curriculum of the principal investigator and all other researchers under him/her. The protocol should include all details of the research to be undertaken including a detailed description, the reasons for the research, literature pertaining to the research, a clear description of the target population, the actual consent form including what information is to be given to the participants, a declaration where necessary that things prohibited by the law (such as use of embryonic stem cells if this is the case in the country [2] will not be researchers, and a declaration that the relevant directives and rules and procedures which the REC falls under will be followed. The REC will also require a description of any risks and what actions are to be undertaken to eliminate hazards. The researchers must adhere only to the protocol given and any changes, minor or major, must be reported to the REC and approved.

OBJECTIVE: To compare patient\'s perception of consent quality, clinical and quality-of-life outcomes after laser vision correction (LVC) and refractive lens exchange (RLE) between patients who met their treating surgeon prior to the day of surgery (PDOS) or on the day of surgery (DOS).
METHODS: Retrospective, comparative case series.
METHODS: Optical Express, Glasgow, UK.
METHODS: Patients treated between October 2015 and June 2016 (3972 LVC and 979 RLE patients) who attended 1-day and 1-month postoperative aftercare and answered a questionnaire were included in this study. All patients had a thorough preoperative discussion with an optometrist, watched a video consent, and were provided with written information. Patients then had a verbal discussion with their treating surgeon either PDOS or on the DOS, according to patient preference. Preoperative and 1-month postoperative visual acuity, refraction, preoperative, 1-day and 1-month postoperative questionnaire were compared between DOS and PDOS patients. Multivariate regression model was developed to find factors associated with patient\'s perception of consent quality.
RESULTS: Preoperatively, 8.0% of LVC and 17.1% of RLE patients elected to meet their surgeon ahead of the surgery day. In the LVC group, 97.5% of DOS and 97.2% of PDOS patients indicated they were properly consented for surgery (P=0.77). In the RLE group, 97.0% of DOS and 97.0% of PDOS patients stated their consent process for surgery was adequate (P=0.98). There was no statistically significant difference between DOS and PDOS patients in most of the postoperative clinical or questionnaire outcomes. Factors predictive of patient\'s satisfaction with consent quality were postoperative satisfaction with vision (46.7% of explained variance), difficulties with night driving, close-up vision or outdoor/sports activities (25.4%), visual phenomena (12.2%), dry eyes (7.5%), and patient\'s satisfaction with surgeon\'s care (8.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: Perception of quality of consent was comparable between patients that elected to meet the surgeon PDOS, and those who did not.

OBJECTIVE: When considering repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for major depressive disorder, clinicians often face a lack of detailed information on potential interactions between rTMS and pharmacotherapy. This is particularly relevant to patients receiving bupropion, a commonly prescribed antidepressant with lower risk of sexual side effects or weight increase, which has been associated with increased risk of seizure in particular populations. Our aim was to systematically review the information on seizures occurred with rTMS to identify the potential risk factors with attention to concurrent medications, particularly bupropion.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review through the databases PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE between 1980 and June 2015. Additional articles were found using reference lists of relevant articles. Reporting of data follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.
METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened articles reporting the occurrence of seizures during rTMS. Articles reporting seizures in epilepsy during rTMS were excluded. A total of 25 rTMS-induced seizures were included in the final review.
METHODS: Data were systematically extracted, and the authors of the applicable studies were contacted when appropriate to provide more detail about the seizure incidents.
RESULTS: Twenty-five seizures were identified. Potential risk factors emerged such as sleep deprivation, polypharmacy, and neurological insult. High-frequency-rTMS was involved in a percentage of the seizures. None of these seizures reported had patients taking bupropion in the literature review. One rTMS-induced seizure was reported from the Food and Drug Administration in a sleep-deprived patient who was concurrently taking bupropion, sertraline, and amphetamine.
CONCLUSIONS: During the consent process, potential risk factors for an rTMS-induced seizure should be carefully screened for and discussed. Data do not support considering concurrent bupropion treatment as contraindication to undergo rTMS.