METHODS: The search was performed based on internet search and three main databases: PubMed, SCOPUS and EBSCO. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation guideline was used to report this work.
RESULTS: Of 34 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 242 essential original constructs were collated, and 7 concepts were derived. Digital content showed the highest percentage of collated original constructs (27%, n = 65) followed by accessibility (24%, n = 56), comprehension engagement (18%, n = 43), autonomy (14%, n = 34), confidentiality (11%, n = 25), language (5%, n = 13), and parental consent (1%, n = 2). Twenty-five new items were synthesized for eConsent criteria which may provide guidance for ethical review of research involving eConsent.
CONCLUSION: The current study adds significant value to the corpus of knowledge in research ethics by providing ethical criteria on electronic informed consent based on evidence-based data. The new synthesized items in the criteria can be readily used as an initial guide by the IRB/REC members during a review process on electronic informed consent and useful to the future preparation of a checklist.
Methods: The study was conducted during September 2020 using an online survey form. First to final year undergraduate students provided their consent and signed an integrity pledge electronically. Age, gender, program of study, year of study, whether staying with family or not, method of financing education, and whether they had used any allopathic medicines during the past 6 months were noted. The total knowledge score among different subgroups was compared. The frequency of responses regarding practice items and the free-text comments were also listed. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney test and Kruskal-Wallis test.
Results: Altogether 441 of the 668 students (66%) participated. The majority were below 23 years and female. Over 65% had used allopathic medicines during the last 6 months. The median knowledge score was 8 (maximum 10) and was significantly higher among older respondents, females and students in later years of study. Most kept unused medicines at home/hostel till expiry which were disposed of in the household garbage. Over 40% had educated their family members about safe medicine disposal. Knowledge scores were significantly different among subgroups according to respondents' age, gender and year of study.
Conclusion: Respondents were aware of expiry of medicines and knew methods to safely dispose expired medicines. However, they practiced self-medication, stored medications at home and did not practice the safe disposal of medications. Understanding why respondents did not dispose medicines properly is important.
METHODS: Consent was provided by patients or by a relative or an independent doctor in incapacitated patients, using a 1-stage (full written consent) or 2-stage (initial brief consent followed by full written consent post-randomization) approach. The computed tomography-to-randomization time according to consent pathways was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify variables associated with onset-to-randomization time of ≤3 hours.
RESULTS: Of 2325 patients, 817 (35%) gave self-consent using 1-stage (557; 68%) or 2-stage consent (260; 32%). For 1507 (65%), consent was provided by a relative (1 stage, 996 [66%]; 2 stage, 323 [21%]) or a doctor (all 2-stage, 188 [12%]). One patient did not record prerandomization consent, with written consent obtained subsequently. The median (interquartile range) computed tomography-to-randomization time was 55 (38-93) minutes for doctor consent, 55 (37-95) minutes for 2-stage patient, 69 (43-110) minutes for 2-stage relative, 75 (48-124) minutes for 1-stage patient, and 90 (56-155) minutes for 1-stage relative consents (P<0.001). Two-stage consent was associated with onset-to-randomization time of ≤3 hours compared with 1-stage consent (adjusted odds ratio, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.5-2.4]). Doctor consent increased the odds (adjusted odds ratio, 2.3 [1.5-3.5]) while relative consent reduced the odds of randomization ≤3 hours (adjusted odds ratio, 0.10 [0.03-0.34]) compared with patient consent. Only 2 of 771 patients (0.3%) in the 2-stage pathways withdrew consent when full consent was sought later. Two-stage consent process did not result in higher withdrawal rates or loss to follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of initial brief consent was associated with shorter times to enrollment, while maintaining good participant retention. Seeking written consent from relatives was associated with significant delays.
REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN93732214.