Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 27, 2026
E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Comparison of Approaches for Notification and Authorization in Pragmatic Clinical Research Evaluating Commonly Used
Kevin P Weinfurt1, Juli M Bollinger, Kathleen M Brelsford
1*Duke Clinical Research Institute †Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC ‡Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics §Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine ∥Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
Background:
For pragmatic clinical research comparing commonly used treatments, questions exist about if and how to notify participants about it and secure their authorization for participation.
Objective:
To determine how patients react when they seek clinical care and encounter one of several different pragmatic clinical research studies.
Research Design:
In an online survey using a between-subjects experimental design, respondents read and responded to 1 of 24 hypothetical research scenarios reflecting different types of studies and approaches to notification and authorization (eg, general notification, oral consent, written consent).
Subjects:
English-speaking US adults 18 years and older.
Measures:
Willingness to participate in the hypothetical study, acceptability of the notification and authorization approach, understanding of the study, perceptions of benefit/harm, trust, and perception of amount of study information received.
Results:
Willingness to participate did not differ by notification and authorization approach. Some (21%-36%) of the patients randomized to general notification with an explicit opt-out provision were not aware they would be enrolled by default. Acceptability was greatest for and similar among notification and authorization approaches that actively engaged the patient (eg, oral or written consent) and lower for approaches with less engagement (eg, general notification). Problems of understanding were found among 20%-55% of respondents, depending on the particular scenario. Most respondents (77%-94%) felt that participation in the hypothetical study posed no risks of harm to their health or privacy.
Conclusions:
Current attitudes about notification and authorization approaches and difficulties understanding pragmatic clinical research pose significant challenges for pragmatic research. Data from this study provide a starting point to developing solutions to these surprisingly complex issues.
More Related Videos
14:43A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
Published on: January 12, 2018
07:31Implementation of a Real-Time Psychosis Risk Detection and Alerting System Based on Electronic Health Records using CogStack
Published on: May 15, 2020
Related Concept Videos
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:16Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
01:11Clinical Trials: Overview
01:19Pharmacovigilance
This process, termed pharmacovigilance, aims to detect, evaluate, and minimize harmful effects related to medication use. The data collection for pharmacovigilance depends on spontaneous reporting systems, where healthcare professionals or patients voluntarily report suspected ADRs.
In some cases, there...
01:15Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients
01:56Ethics in Research