Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDal-Ré, Rafael
dc.contributor.authorCarcas Sansuán, Antonio Javier 
dc.contributor.authorCarné, Xavier
dc.contributor.authorWendler, David
dc.contributor.otherUAM. Departamento de Farmacologíaes_ES
dc.contributor.otherInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital Universitario de La Paz (IdiPAZ)es_ES
dc.contributor.otherUAM. Departamento de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública y Microbiologíaes_ES
dc.contributor.otherInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria Fundación Jiménez Díaz (IIS-FJD)es_ES
dc.date.accessioned2017-11-28T14:41:21Z
dc.date.available2017-11-28T14:41:21Z
dc.date.issued2017-01-01
dc.identifier.citationBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 83.9 (2017): 1921-1931en_US
dc.identifier.issn0306-5251 (print)es_ES
dc.identifier.issn1365-2125 (online)es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10486/680527
dc.description.abstractAims: Pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) collect data that have the potential to improve medical care significantly. However, these trials may be undermined by the requirement to obtain written informed consent, which can decrease accrual and increase selection bias. Recent data suggest that the majority of the US public endorses written consent for low-risk pRCTs. The present study was designed to assess whether this view is specific to the US. Methods: The study took the form of a cross-sectional, probability-based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design, assessing support for written informed consent vs. verbal consent or general notification for two low-risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing two drugs with similar risk/benefit profiles and the other comparing the same drug being taken in the morning or at night. The primary outcome measures were respondents' personal preference and hypothetical recommendation to a research ethics committee regarding the use of written informed consent vs. the alternatives. Results: A total of 2008 adults sampled from a probability-based online panel responded to the web-based survey conducted in May 2016 (response rate: 61%). Overall, 77% of respondents endorsed written consent. In both scenarios, the alternative of general notification received significantly more support (28.7–37.1%) than the alternative of verbal consent (12.7–14.0%) (P = 0.001). Forty per cent of respondents preferred and/or recommended general notification rather than written consent. Conclusions: The results suggested that, rather than attempting to waive written consent, current pRCTs should focus on developing ways to implement written consent that provide sufficient information without undermining recruitment or increasing selection bias. The finding that around 40% of respondents endorsed general notification over written consent raises the possibility that, with educational efforts, the majority of Spaniards might accept general notification for low-risk pRCTsen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was supported in part by the Victor Grifols i Lucas Foundation (Barcelona, Spain:http://www.fundaciogrifols.org/en/web/fundacio/home). The present work was funded in part by intramural research funds of the US NIH Clinical Centeren_US
dc.format.extent11 pag.es_ES
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.language.isoengen
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.en_US
dc.relation.ispartofBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacologyen_US
dc.rights© 2017 The Authorsen_US
dc.subject.otherClinical trial regulationen_US
dc.subject.otherGeneral notificationen_US
dc.subject.otherLow-risken_US
dc.subject.otherPragmatic trialsen_US
dc.subject.otherVerbal informed consenten_US
dc.subject.otherWritten informed consenten_US
dc.titlePublic preferences on written informed consent for low-risk pragmatic clinical trials in Spainen_US
dc.typearticleen
dc.subject.ecienciaMedicinaes_ES
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13305es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/bcp.13305es_ES
dc.identifier.publicationfirstpage1921es_ES
dc.identifier.publicationissue9es_ES
dc.identifier.publicationlastpage1931es_ES
dc.identifier.publicationvolume83es_ES
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionen
dc.rights.ccReconocimiento – NoComerciales_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen
dc.authorUAMCarcas Sansuan, Antonio Javier (259090)
dc.facultadUAMFacultad de Medicina
dc.institutoUAMInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria Fundación Jiménez Díaz (ISS-FJD)
dc.institutoUAMInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital Universitario de La Paz (IdiPAZ)


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record