Tools
Tools
Ngoliwa, Clara, Chakwiya, Chikondi, Gondwe, Joel, Nsomba, Edna, Nkhoma, Vitumbiko, Reuben, Modesta, Chantunga, Linda, Liwonde, Pemphero, Mangani, Edward, Kudowa, Evaristar, Makhaza, Lumbani, Toto, Neema, Sochera, Tiferanji, Chikaonda, Tarsizio, Morton, Ben 
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6164-2854, Henrion, Marc, Dula, Dingase, Gordon, Stephen ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6576-1116 and Chirwa, Anthony E
(2024)
'Piloting electronic informed consenting in a pneumococcal human infection study in Blantyre, Malawi'. Wellcome Open Research, Vol 9, e233.
|
Text
Piloting electronic informed consenting in a pneumococcal human infection study in Blantyre Malawi.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (449kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Background
Electronic consent can potentially improve accuracy, workflow, and overall patient experience in clinical research but has not been used in Malawi, owing to uncertainty about data security and technical support.
Objectives
We explored the feasibility of using electronic consent (e-consent) in an ongoing human infection study in Blantyre Malawi. We dual-consented participants by both electronic and paper methods to assess the feasibility of electronic consent, and then compared benefits and challenges of the two methods.
Methods
The approved paper consent forms were digitized using Open Data Kit (ODK). Following participant information giving by the research staff, healthy literate adult participants with no audio-visual impairments completed a self-administered e-consent and provided an electronic signature. Signed e-consent forms were uploaded to a secure study server. While the participants were in clinic, the signed electronic consent form was printed as a copy for the participant. The feasibility, advantages and disadvantages including data safety consideration for e-consenting were evaluated by exploring issues surrounding use of e-consenting versus paper-based consenting. Consent forms were analysed by research staff for errors such as overwriting and legibility.
Results
We piloted 109 participants to e-consenting. It was found to be user friendly, had 0% (n 0/109) errors compared to 43.1% (n 47/109) in paper based methods along with enhanced data safety. The challenges included difficult digitization of ethics stamped documents, volunteer unfamiliarity with tablet user interface and its requirement for a working internet and printer.
Conclusion
E-consenting was feasible but required additional resource investment. Benefits included error minimization and data security.
Statistics
Actions (login required)
 |
Edit Item |