Cover not available
Article published In:
Developing shared languages: The fundamentals of mutual learning and problem solving in transdisciplinary collaboration
Edited by Marlies Whitehouse, Henrik Rahm and Séverine Wozniak
[AILA Review 34:1] 2021
► pp. 37–56

Analysing and optimising Informed Consent in cooperation with ethics committees and medical researchers

| ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences
| ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences
| ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences

Medical researchers are ethically and legally required to inform participants and get written permission before enrolling them into a human research project (Informed Consent). Accordingly, information and consent represent a complex procedure, and the participant concerned “must receive comprehensible oral and written information” (Swiss legislation: Human Research Act (HRA) Art. 16). A triangle of stakeholders is involved in the procedure: ethics committees that review and approve research projects and Informed Consent (IC) documents, medical researchers who produce the documents and discuss enrolment with patients, and patients who have to be informed comprehensibly. From a linguistic point of view, the question arises as to which perceptions of comprehensibility form the basis of the IC process and how shared language can be established considering the complex relationship between these stakeholders. This contribution presents findings from two perspectives (ethics committees and researchers) while considering the needs of all three stakeholders. Firstly, the conceptualisation of comprehensibility among three ethic committees is presented, and steps toward harmonisation are outlined. Secondly, limitations of how researchers conduct oral IC information are analysed, and the measures that were implemented to improve patient information are discussed. A transdisciplinary approach is key in establishing these solutions because they do not stem from linguistic analysis alone but have been developed in close collaboration with members of ethics committees and medical researchers. Thus, the project shows how the expertise of applied linguistics in cooperation with practitioners can deliver an important impact in both academic analysis and optimisation of professional procedures.

Keywords: comprehensibility, shared language, informed consent, oral and written information, transdisciplinary action research
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Comprehensibility and Informed Consent: An introduction to the problem from a linguistic perspective
  • 3.Method: Transdisciplinary action research and semi-structured interviews with practitioners
  • 4.Results 1: The perspective of ECs
    • 4.1Review process
    • 4.2Comprehensibility criteria
  • 5.Results 2: The perspective of researchers
    • 5.1Thematic structure
    • 5.2Interactive organisation
  • 6.Practical solutions: Optimising comprehensibility in the Informed Consent process
    • 6.1Developing and implementing comprehensibility criteria for ECs and researchers
    • 6.2Combining oral and written information
  • 7.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 9 September 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.20007.mat
References
Appelbaum, P. S.
(2010) Understanding “understanding”: An important step toward improving informed consent to research. AJOB Primary Research, 1(2), 1–3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, J. H.
(2015) Transdisciplinarity: A review of its origins, development, and current issues. Journal of Research Practice, 11(1), Article R1. Retrieved from [URL]
Busch, A.
(2015) 20. Medizindiskurse: Mediale Räume der Experten-Laien-Kommunikation. In A. Busch & T. Spranz-Fogasy (Eds.), Handbuch Sprache in der Medizin (pp. 369–388). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Busch, A., & Spranz-Fogasy, T.
(2015) Sprache in der Medizin. In E. Felder & A. Gardt (Eds.), Handbuch Sprache und Wissen (pp. 335–357). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Nardi, G., Matic, I., & Steiner, F.
(2018) Verständlichkeit von schriftlicher Aufklärung zur Forschungsteilnahme: Die Auffassungen und Strategien von Ethikkommissionen und Forschenden. ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) Informed-Consent-Aufklärung aus Sicht der Forschenden. ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A.
(2008) Gespräche analysieren: Eine Einführung (4. Aufl.). VS Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, M., Matic, I., & Steiner, F.
(2016) Informed Consent: Literaturbericht, Verständlichkeitsmodell und Evaluation der swissethics-Templates. ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, K. B., & Truwit, J. D.
(2008) The purpose, composition, and function of an institutional review board: Balancing priorities. Respiratory Care, 53(10), 1330–1336.Google Scholar
Gefenas, E.
(2012) Informed consent. In R. Chadwick (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied ethics (pp. 721–730). Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, S.
(2019) In N. Janich (Ed.). Textlinguistik: 15 Einführungen und eine Diskussion (2., aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage). Narr Francke Attempto.Google Scholar
Groß, A., & Harren, I.
(2016) Einleitung: Wissen in institutioneller Interaktion. In A. Groß, & I. Harren (Eds.), Wissen in institutioneller Interaktion (pp. 7–25). Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S.
(2010) Talk in action: Interactions, identities and institutions. Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ilić, N., Auchlin, A., Hadengue, A., Wenger, A., & Hurst, S. A.
(2013) Informed consent forms in oncology research: Linguistic tools identify recurrent pitfalls. AJOB Primary Research, 4(4), 39–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruse, J.
(2015) Qualitative Interviewforschung. Ein integrativer Ansatz. Beltz Juventa.Google Scholar
Lentz, J., Kennett, M., Perlmutter, J., & Forrest, A.
(2016) Paving the way to a more effective informed consent process: Recommendations from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 491, 65–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lidz, C. W.
(2006) The therapeutic misconception and our models of competency and informed consent. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24(4), 535–546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, P., & Luckmann, T.
(1991) Asymmetries in dialogue: Some conceptual preliminaries. In I. Marková & K. Foppa (Eds.), The dynamics of dialogue (pp. 1–20). Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Matic, I., Steiner, F., & De Nardi, G.
(2020) Experten-Laien-Kommunikation in der mündlich-schriftlichen Aufklärung zu Humanforschungsprojekten. Sprache im Beruf, 3(2), 223–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, J., & Glassner, B.
(2016) The `inside’ and the `outside’: Finding realities in interviews. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research (4th ed., pp. 51–66). Sage.Google Scholar
Paris, A., Deygas, B., Cornu, C., Thalamas, C., Maison, P., Duale, C., Kane, M., Hodaj, E., & Cracowski, J.-L.
(2015) Improved informed consent documents for biomedical research do not increase patients’ understanding but reduce enrolment: A study in real settings. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 80(5), 1010–1020. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pietrzykowski, T., & Smilowska, K.
(2021) The reality of informed consent: Empirical studies on patient comprehension – Systematic review. Trials, 22(1), 57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pilegaard, M.
(2016) The ethics of informed consent. An applied linguistics perspective. In P. Ordóñez-López & N. Edo-Marzá (Eds.), Medical discourse in professional, academic and popular settings (pp. 79–102). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pilegaard, M., & Berg Ravn, H.
(2014) Informed consent: Towards improved lay-friendliness of patient information sheets. Communication and Medicine, 10(3), 201–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Realpe, A., Adams, A., Wall, P., Griffin, D., & Donovan, J. L.
(2016) A new simple six-step model to promote recruitment to RCTs was developed and successfully implemented. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 761, 166–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saldaña, J.
(2009) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.Google Scholar
Sand, K., Kaasa, S., & Loge, J. H.
(2010) The understanding of informed consent information – Definitions and measurements in empirical studies. AJOB Primary Research, 1(2), 4–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Santel, F., Bah, I., Kim, K., Lin, J.-A., McCracken, J., & Teme, A.
(2019) Assessing readability and comprehension of informed consent materials for medical device research: A survey of informed consents from FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 851, 105831. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schatz, T., Haberstroh, J., Bindel, K., Oswald, F., Pantel, J., Paulitsch, M., Konopik, N., & Knopf, M.
(2017) Improving comprehension in written medical informed consent procedures. GeroPsych, 30(3), 97–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schulz, M.
(2012) Quick and easy!? Fokusgruppen in der angewandten Sozialwissenschaft. In M. Schulz, B. Mack, & O. Renn (Eds.), Fokusgruppen in der empirischen Sozialwissenschaft. Von der Konzeption bis zur Auswertung (pp. 9–22). VS Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shafiq, N., & Malhotra, S.
(2011) Ethics in clinical research: Need for assessing comprehension of informed consent form? Contemporary Clinical Trials, 32(2), 169–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stark, L. J. M.
(2012) Behind closed doors IRBs and the making of ethical research. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stead, M., Eadie, D., Gordon, D., & Angus, K.
(2005) ‘‘Hello, hello – it’s English I speak!’’: a qualitative ex-ploration of patients’ understanding of the science of clinical trials. J Med Ethics, 311, 664–669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tam, N., Huy, N., Thoa, L., Long, N., Trang, N., Hirayama, K., & Karbwang, J.
(2015) Participants’ understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 93(3), 186–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogele, D., Schöffski, O., Efinger, K., Schmidt, S. A., Beer, M., & Kildal, D.
(2020) Aufklärungserfolg, Zufriedenheit und Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten bei Computertomographie-Aufklärungen. Der Radiologe, 60(11), 1077–1084. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wade, J., Donovan, J. L., Athene Lane, J., Neal, D. E., & Hamdy, F. C.
(2009) It’s not just what you say, it’s also how you say it: Opening the ‘black box’ of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials. Social Science & Medicine, 68(11), 2018–2028. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, R.
(2009) Informed consent and patient autonomy. In H. Kuhse & P. Singer (Eds.), A companion to bioethics (pp. 530–540). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar