Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23757370›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2013

An investigation of the efficacy of electronic consenting interfaces of research permissions management system in a hospital setting.

Kapil Chalil Madathil, Reshmi Koikkara, Jihad Obeid, Joel S Greenstein, Iain C Sanderson, Katrina Fryar, Jay Moskowitz, Anand K Gramopadhye

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Comparative Effectiveness of eConsent: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Interactive multimedia consent for biobanking: a randomized trial.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2016
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Remote Methods for Conducting Tobacco-Focused Clinical Trials.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Replacing Paper Informed Consent with Electronic Informed Consent for Research in Academic Medical Centers: A Scoping Review.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Evaluation of a REDCap-based Workflow for Supporting Federal Guidance for Electronic Informed Consent.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2019
    Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Kapil Chalil Madathil110 Freeman Hall, Department of Industrial Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, United States. kapilcm@gmail.com
Reshmi Koikkara
Jihad Obeid
Joel S Greenstein
Iain C Sanderson
Katrina Fryar
Jay Moskowitz
Anand K Gramopadhye

Funding

An Open Source Research Permissions Framework for South CarolinaRC2LM010796 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI MOSKOWITZ, JAY · 2009 to 2010
$4.8M
NLM NIH HHS RC2LM01079NLM NIH HHS RC2 LM010796
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEthical and legal requirements for healthcare providers in the United States, stipulate that patients sign a consent form prior to undergoing medical treatment or participating in a research study. Currently, the majority of the hospitals obtain these consents using paper-based forms, which makes patient preference data cumbersome to store, search and retrieve. To address these issues, Health Sciences of South Carolina (HSSC), a collaborative of academic medical institutions and research universities in South Carolina, is developing an electronic consenting system, the Research Permissions Management System (RPMS). This article reports the findings of a study conducted to investigate the efficacy of the two proposed interfaces for this system - an iPad-based and touchscreen-based by comparing them to the paper-based and Topaz-based systems currently in use.

methodsThis study involved 50 participants: 10 hospital admission staff and 40 patients. The four systems were compared with respect to the time taken to complete the consenting process, the number of errors made by the patients, the workload experienced by the hospital staff and the subjective ratings of both patients and staff on post-test questionnaires.

resultsThe results from the empirical study indicated no significant differences in the time taken to complete the tasks. More importantly, the participants found the new systems more usable than the conventional methods with the registration staff experiencing the least workload in the iPad and touchscreen-based conditions and the patients experiencing more privacy and control during the consenting process with the proposed electronic systems. In addition, they indicated better comprehension and awareness of what they were signing using the new interfaces. DISCUSSION: The results indicate the two methods proposed for capturing patient consents are at least as effective as the conventional methods, and superior in several important respects. While more research is needed, these findings suggest the viability of cautious adoption of electronic consenting systems, especially because these new systems appear to address the challenge of identifying the participants required for the complex research being conducted as the result of advances in the biomedical sciences.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicInformed ConsentPatient SelectionAdolescentAdultAgedComputers, HandheldDocumentationFemaleHospitalsHumansInformation ManagementMaleMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedMiddle AgedPaperData collectionElectronic consenting systemsInformaticsInformed consentiPadMobile devicesRegistration staff

Identifiers

PMID23757370
PMCPMC3779682

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.