Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35783466›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Co-creation with research participants to inform the design of electronic informed consent.

Evelien De Sutter, David Geerts, Pascal Borry, Kristien Coteur, Dorien Bamps, Heleen Marynissen, Els Ampe, Els Geenens, Marleen Depré, Isabelle Huys

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Evelien De SutterDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6575-2033
David GeertsKU Leuven Digital Society Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Pascal BorryDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Center for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Kristien CoteurDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Academic Center for General Practice, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3170-0195
Dorien BampsDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3441-4290
Heleen MarynissenDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Els AmpeCenter for Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Els GeenensCenter for Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Marleen DepréCenter for Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Isabelle HuysDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to provide recommendations for a personalized electronic informed consent interface that is adapted to research participants' needs and could enable a longitudinal interaction between the participants and the research team. Methods: The co-creation process consisted of three co-creation workshops, one focus group discussion, and four semi-structured interviews. In total, 24 participants, who had taken part in four disparate clinical studies in Belgium, were involved. Descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis were applied to analyze the survey data and audio recordings. Results: Varying perceptions on the type and amount of information described in an informed consent form were reported. Other findings were related to the structure and presentation of information, setting preferences for data sharing, and electronically signing new informed consent versions. Regarding the long-term interaction, most of the participants wanted to receive progress updates, including the results, of the study in which they had taken part. They proposed to receive a notification, preferably via email, in case new information is made available on the electronic informed consent interface. Conclusions: To optimally support the design of an electronic informed consent interface, it is key to understand the research participants' needs. Study findings suggest that an electronic informed consent interface may be a promising technological application to interactively provide study-related information and to keep participants informed during and after the clinical study.

Indexed as

clinical studydigital technologyHuman-centered designinformed consentuser interface

Identifiers

PMID35783466
PMCPMC9243370
OpenAlexW4283832674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.