Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38965542›Full record

ArticleTrials2024

Coerced consent in clinical research: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Connor T A Brenna, Nancy Walton, Melanie Cohn, Urooj Siddiqui, Ella Huszti, Richard Brull

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07380035 (Voluntariness of Same-Day Consent for Participation in Low-Risk Clinical Anesthesia Research Trials), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT07380035 nacompletednot on this map

Voluntariness of Same-Day Consent for Participation in Low-Risk Clinical Anesthesia Research Trials: A Prospective, Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of TorontoRan2024 to 2025Enrolled114ConditionsConsent of Patients, Coercion to Participate in ResearchArmsInvitation to Consent to Trial Participation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Connor T A BrennaDepartment of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. connor.brenna@mail.utoronto.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6126-3897
Nancy WaltonYeates School of Graduate Studies, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Melanie CohnKrembil Brain Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Urooj SiddiquiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ella HusztiBiostatistics Department, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Richard BrullDepartment of Anesthesia and Pain Management, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. richard.brull@uhn.ca.

Funding

Women's College Hospital WCH-24-008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the low-risk nature of participation in most clinical anesthesia trials, subject recruitment on the same day as surgery is often restricted due to the concerns of researchers and local research ethics boards that same-day consent may not afford adequate time and opportunity for patients to weigh and make decisions, as well as perceptions of patient vulnerability immediately prior to surgery that could impact the voluntary nature and the rigor of the informed consent process. However, specialties such as anesthesiology, critical care, interventional radiology, and emergency medicine have a varied pattern of practice and patient acquaintance that does not typically afford the luxury of time or, in many cases, advance consent for participation in research. Indeed, the initial encounter between anesthesiologists and patients undergoing elective procedures routinely occurs on the day of surgery. Concerns of coercion related to same-day consent for clinical anesthesia research trials have not been borne out in the literature, and represent a significant obstacle to clinical researchers, as well as to the patients who are denied opportunities for potential benefit through participation in research studies.

methodsWe describe the protocol for a prospective randomized controlled trial examining the voluntariness of patient consent, solicited either in advance of surgery or on the same day, to participate in an anesthesia research study at Women's College Hospital. One hundred fourteen patients scheduled to undergo ambulatory anterior cruciate ligament repair facilitated by general anesthesia with an adductor canal block will be randomized for recruitment either (a) in the pre-operative assessment clinic before the day of surgery or (b) on the day of surgery, to be approached for consent to participate in a fabricated research study of adjunct medications in adductor canal blocks. Regardless of allocation, patients in both groups will receive the same routine standard of care and will complete a post-operative questionnaire to signal perceptions of undue influence in the process of providing informed consent for the fabricated trial. DISCUSSION: This study will inform trial design and practice guidelines surrounding the amount of time patients ought to be afforded in order to make durable decisions to participate (or not) in clinical research studies. This is expected to impact trial recruitment in a variety of clinical settings where researchers have only brief opportunities to interface with patients.

trial registrationThe trial was registered prospectively on the Open Science Framework (OSF), registration #46twc, on 2023-Mar-17.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnesthesia, GeneralFemaleHumansPatient SelectionProspective StudiesResearch SubjectsTime FactorsClinical trialsCoercionPerioperative researchResearch consentVoluntariness

Identifiers

PMID38965542
PMCPMC11223386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.