Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41572322›Full record

ArticleTrials2026

Lessons learnt from the implementation of electronic consent (eConsent) and its use across a large portfolio of trials in a UK academic clinical trials unit.

D E Appelbe, L Eldridge, V S Barber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

D E AppelbeOxford Trauma and Emergency Care, Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK. Duncan.Appelbe@ndorms.ox.ac.uk.
L EldridgeOxford Clinical Trials Research Unit (OCTRU), Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
V S BarberOxford Clinical Trials Research Unit (OCTRU), Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of electronic consent (eConsent) in clinical research studies is on the increase and has been since 2019. eConsent itself can be multi-faceted, encompassing documentation of the consent process, delivering information to the potential participant via the use of different media, and even facilitating a check of the participants' understanding of the research before they enter a study. Some researchers and research teams have embraced the use of the different aspects of eConsent, whilst other groups/teams are hesitant to employ the methodology until it has been proven and fits better with workflows and patient pathways. MAIN TEXT: We report on how eConsent has been utilised in 35 studies from a large academic clinical trials unit in the UK, with nearly 12,000 participants being consented using this methodology via the REDCap data collection system over a 6-year period. The studies utilising eConsent have all made use of the documentation facet of eConsent, with some studies also making use of different media to provide information to the potential participant. The use of these methods has been adopted by the majority of our open studies and all but one of the research delivery teams across the whole CTU portfolio. To facilitate some of the processes that need to be implemented, two external modules have been written for REDCap to make the process easier. Many of our studies also make use of the facility to enable remote eConsent (i.e. where the potential participant and researcher are not physically in the same place), and very few studies in our portfolio now require paper consent forms as either an alternative option or as a backup in case the electronic systems are not available. This has resulted in a reduction in the amount of paper that needs to be provided, resulting in a decrease in the carbon footprint of the studies.

conclusionsWe have successfully utilised eConsent techniques to receive informed consent from nearly 12,000 participants in a multitude of clinical trials recruiting individuals from age 8 to 80. Half of these trials also used eConsent to facilitate both the documentation and the discussion around the consent process. Where remote eConsent has been used, techniques have been employed to make the process easier on the participant and the researcher, whilst not detracting from the two-way conversation that is important for the consent process.

Indexed as

Academic Medical CentersClinical Trials as TopicConsent FormsInformed ConsentResearch SubjectsDocumentationHumansPatient SelectionResearch DesignUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID41572322
PMCPMC12829000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.