search
Back to results

Communicating Risks: Consent for Lumbar Puncture

Primary Purpose

Informed Consent, Health Literacy, Risk, Spinal Puncture, Neurosurgery

Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United Kingdom
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Anatomy diagrams
Standard informed consent
Sponsored by
University College London Hospitals
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional health services research trial for Informed Consent, Health Literacy, Risk, Spinal Puncture, Neurosurgery focused on measuring Health Literacy, Risk, Spinal Puncture

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesAccepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion Criteria: Healthy individuals Above 18 years old No underlying cognitive impairment Exclusion Criteria: Individuals with prior experience receiving, performing or observing a lumbar puncture Lacks capacity Hospitalized individuals

Sites / Locations

  • University College London

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Active Comparator

Experimental

Arm Label

Standard informed consent

Visual aid group

Arm Description

Video with audio narration containing information provided in the standard informed consent process for a lumbar puncture

Video with identical audio narration (to the control) containing information provided in the standard informed consent process for a lumbar puncture. The video also received statistical information in the form of visual aids; anatomy diagrams, Paling diagrams and Paling scales

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Recall of probabilistic risk
Measured by the number of correct answers to our procedure specific questionnaire

Secondary Outcome Measures

Response to procedure specific statements
Measured using 5-point likert scale responses
Acceptability
Measured by the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) scale
Approrpiateness
Measured by the Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) scale
Usability
Measured by the System Usability Scale (SUS)

Full Information

First Posted
January 28, 2023
Last Updated
January 28, 2023
Sponsor
University College London Hospitals
Collaborators
University College, London
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT05717465
Brief Title
Communicating Risks: Consent for Lumbar Puncture
Official Title
Communicating Risks: Consent for Lumbar Puncture
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
January 2023
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
March 27, 2022 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
May 26, 2022 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
May 26, 2022 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
University College London Hospitals
Collaborators
University College, London

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
The goal of this randomized control trial is to compare the effect of visual aids on the recall of probabilistic risks in healthy participants. The main questions it aims to answer are: Will participants consented using a consent process incorporating visual aids recall the consent process better? Will participants consented with a consent process incorporating visual aids have higher acceptability if a hypothetical, simulated complication were to occur? Is this method of consent (visual aids) usable, appropriate and acceptable? Participants will be required to watch a brief video containing information on how a lumbar puncture is performed as well as the associated risks. Participants in the intervention group will receive information in the form of various visual aids (e.g. anatomical diagrams, paling palettes and paling perspective scales). The audio narration and information provided in both groups is identical. Participants will be tested on their knowledge of the procedure Participants will be asked to rate their response to a series of procedure specific statements and statements from other validated scales. Researchers will compare the control and intervention group to see if there is improvement in the recall of information and which consent process is more acceptable, appropriate and usable.
Detailed Description
Background: Informed consent is an essential process in clinical decision-making, through which healthcare providers educate patients about the benefits, risks and alternatives of a given procedure or intervention in a descriptive way. An accurate understanding of the numerical information pertaining to risk is important because individuals perceive probability differently while also having different thresholds for what they would consider an unacceptable. This is vital for shared decision making to ensure that patients only undergo procedures or treatments where their understanding of the risks is in line with their personal level of acceptability. Aid tools have been employed to elaborate and communicate probabilistic risk information in areas such as screening (1). To the best of our knowledge there are no studies which evaluate the application of such visual aids on probabilistic information in surgical patients. Objectives: Our study aims to explore the effectiveness of visual aids to help communicate statistical information during the informed consent of a common clinical procedure: a lumbar puncture. We compare the effectiveness of this enhanced consent process against a typical consent method without visual aids Methods: Healthy participants were recruited within our institution and randomized using Qualtrics to complete a questionnaire containing either the control video or intervention video. Both videos contained identical audio narration however the intervention video included additional visual aids. Status: Recruitment of participants has been completed and the study has been written-up and submitted for publication and presentations.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Informed Consent, Health Literacy, Risk, Spinal Puncture, Neurosurgery
Keywords
Health Literacy, Risk, Spinal Puncture

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Health Services Research
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Model Description
Upon clicking the link to the study questionnaire, participants were randomized to either receive the control or intervention questionnaire. This was done through Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) built-in randomization.
Masking
InvestigatorOutcomes Assessor
Masking Description
Investigators were blind as to which arm participants were allocated to as the randomization and intervention/control exposure occurs after participants open the link to the study questionnaire. The same link would allocate participants to either the control/intervention group. Outcomes were assessed within the questionnaire without any human input No care providers were present in this study
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
52 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Standard informed consent
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Video with audio narration containing information provided in the standard informed consent process for a lumbar puncture
Arm Title
Visual aid group
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Video with identical audio narration (to the control) containing information provided in the standard informed consent process for a lumbar puncture. The video also received statistical information in the form of visual aids; anatomy diagrams, Paling diagrams and Paling scales
Intervention Type
Other
Intervention Name(s)
Anatomy diagrams
Other Intervention Name(s)
Paling diagrams, Paling scale
Intervention Description
The visual aids used included: An anatomical diagram illustrating how a lumbar puncture is carried out Paling palette, diagram illustrating the number of individuals affected by a particular condition Paling perspective scale, diagram comparing the risk of an event occurring in comparison to other 'everyday' risks
Intervention Type
Other
Intervention Name(s)
Standard informed consent
Intervention Description
Audio narration of a video containing text information relating to the lumbar puncture procedure (including risks) and an image of a consent form
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Recall of probabilistic risk
Description
Measured by the number of correct answers to our procedure specific questionnaire
Time Frame
Measured immediately following exposure to control/intervention
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Response to procedure specific statements
Description
Measured using 5-point likert scale responses
Time Frame
Measured immediately following exposure to control/intervention
Title
Acceptability
Description
Measured by the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) scale
Time Frame
Measured immediately following exposure to control/intervention
Title
Approrpiateness
Description
Measured by the Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) scale
Time Frame
Measured immediately following exposure to control/intervention
Title
Usability
Description
Measured by the System Usability Scale (SUS)
Time Frame
Measured immediately following exposure to control/intervention

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Healthy individuals Above 18 years old No underlying cognitive impairment Exclusion Criteria: Individuals with prior experience receiving, performing or observing a lumbar puncture Lacks capacity Hospitalized individuals
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Anand S Pandit, PhD MRCS
Organizational Affiliation
University College London/University College London Hospital
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Hani J Marcus, PhD FRCS (SN)
Organizational Affiliation
University College London/University College London Hospital
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
University College London
City
London
ZIP/Postal Code
WC1E 6BT
Country
United Kingdom

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
Undecided
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
33196663
Citation
Coyle M, Gillies K. A systematic review of risk communication in clinical trials: How does it influence decisions to participate and what are the best methods to improve understanding in a trial context? PLoS One. 2020 Nov 16;15(11):e0242239. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242239. eCollection 2020.
Results Reference
background

Learn more about this trial

Communicating Risks: Consent for Lumbar Puncture

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs