Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Poster presentation
  • Open Access

Evaluation of interventions for informed consent for randomised controlled trials (ELICIT): developing a core outcome set

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 2 and
  • 1
Trials201516(Suppl 2):P53

https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-16-S2-P53

Published: 16 November 2015

Keywords

  • Systematic Literature Review
  • Informed Consent Process
  • Healthcare Intervention
  • Systematic Methodology
  • Delphi Study

The process of obtaining informed consent for participation in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was established as a mechanism to protect participants against undue harm from research and allow people to recognise any potential risks, or benefits, associated with the research. A number of interventions have been put forward to improve this process. Outcomes reported in trials of interventions to improve the informed consent process for decisions about trial participation tend to focus on ‘understanding’ of trial information and recruitment to the parent study. Yet there is a lack of clarity regarding whether these are the ‘right’ outcomes to measure and which outcomes matter (to whom) and why.

The ELICIT project aims to develop a core outcome set for the evaluation of interventions intended to improve how people make decisions about whether to participate in RCTs of healthcare interventions

The ELICIT project will adopt and adapt methodology previously developed and used in projects developing core outcome sets. Specifically, the work will consist of four stages: 1. A systematic methodology review of existing outcome measures of trial informed consent interventions; 2. Interviews with key stakeholders to explore additional outcomes relevant for trial participation decisions; 3. A Delphi study to refine the core outcome set for evaluation of trial informed consent interventions; and 4. A consensus group meeting to finalise the core outcome set.

This presentation will discuss the key issues relevant for this work and present data generated to date from the systematic literature review, which is reviewing both evidence from explanatory, exploratory and philosophical literature.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
(2)
Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

Copyright

© Gillies et al. 2015

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Please note that comments may be removed without notice if they are flagged by another user or do not comply with our community guidelines.

Advertisement