IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0188466.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using iterative learning to improve understanding during the informed consent process in a South African psychiatric genomics study

Author

Listed:
  • Megan M Campbell
  • Ezra Susser
  • Sumaya Mall
  • Sibonile G Mqulwana
  • Michael M Mndini
  • Odwa A Ntola
  • Mohamed Nagdee
  • Zukiswa Zingela
  • Stephanus Van Wyk
  • Dan J Stein

Abstract

Obtaining informed consent is a great challenge in global health research. There is a need for tools that can screen for and improve potential research participants’ understanding of the research study at the time of recruitment. Limited empirical research has been conducted in low and middle income countries, evaluating informed consent processes in genomics research. We sought to investigate the quality of informed consent obtained in a South African psychiatric genomics study. A Xhosa language version of the University of California, San Diego Brief Assessment of Capacity to Consent Questionnaire (UBACC) was used to screen for capacity to consent and improve understanding through iterative learning in a sample of 528 Xhosa people with schizophrenia and 528 controls. We address two questions: firstly, whether research participants’ understanding of the research study improved through iterative learning; and secondly, what were predictors for better understanding of the research study at the initial screening? During screening 290 (55%) cases and 172 (33%) controls scored below the 14.5 cut-off for acceptable understanding of the research study elements, however after iterative learning only 38 (7%) cases and 13 (2.5%) controls continued to score below this cut-off. Significant variables associated with increased understanding of the consent included the psychiatric nurse recruiter conducting the consent screening, higher participant level of education, and being a control. The UBACC proved an effective tool to improve understanding of research study elements during consent, for both cases and controls. The tool holds utility for complex studies such as those involving genomics, where iterative learning can be used to make significant improvements in understanding of research study elements. The UBACC may be particularly important in groups with severe mental illness and lower education levels. Study recruiters play a significant role in managing the quality of the informed consent process.

Suggested Citation

  • Megan M Campbell & Ezra Susser & Sumaya Mall & Sibonile G Mqulwana & Michael M Mndini & Odwa A Ntola & Mohamed Nagdee & Zukiswa Zingela & Stephanus Van Wyk & Dan J Stein, 2017. "Using iterative learning to improve understanding during the informed consent process in a South African psychiatric genomics study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-11, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0188466
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188466
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188466
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188466&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0188466?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0188466. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.