Ethical research on detained persons remains limited, including research on informed consent. This study aimed to fill in this research gap and compared audio-visual and paper-based materials for a one-time general informed consent for research in prison, using a randomized design. The primary outcome was whether participants sign the inform consent. Secondary outcomes included understanding, evaluation, and time to read/watch the informed consent.
Detained persons constitute a very vulnerable and perhaps reluctant to share their medical data. In particular, it is crucial to ensure that these persons, deprived of their liberty, understand that their consent is voluntary and that a refusal will not have any consequence on their treatment or care. In other words, it is necessary to ensure that consent is informed. In a historical context of non-ethical research using detained persons, this is a crucial issue. However, while detained persons are now protected from various forms of abuse, this may have had the consequence of reducing research involving them, to the detriment of understanding their characteristics and vulnerabilities. A general consent for research will encourage research on prison populations by facilitating access to their medical data in order to study and reduce health disparities, for this population with multiple somatic and psychiatric comorbidities. Our main questions are: Q1. What is the acceptability rate of general consent for research in detained persons? Q2. What are the characteristics (socio-demographic and medical) of detained person who refuse to give their consent? Q3. Which material (paper-based or video) is more effective? To answer these research question, we will use an exploratory randomized cross-sectional trial, conducted in an adult pre-trial prison and a juvenile detention center. Participants will be randomly assigned to read or watch information about informed consent, stratified on the prison. In both prisons, the study will take place in the prison medical unit. This project is aimed to improve general consent, which contributes to reducing inequalities in documentation on health status, and ultimately, health inequalities.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
290
Participants were randomized to receive a paper-based conventional material or to watch a 4-min video. Materials both included legal information required by the Swiss Federal Act on Research involving Human Beings.
Division of prison health
Geneva, Switzerland
Acceptance to sign the informed consent
Binary outcome, legal Swiss document
Time frame: Assessed immediately after intervention
Understanding of the informed consent
Eight self-developed questions assessed as true/false and combined in a 0-8 points score
Time frame: Assessed immediately after intervention
Evaluation of the informed consent
Nine self-developed question assessed on a six-point Likert scale and averaged
Time frame: Assessed immediately after intervention
Time to read/watch
Time in minutes for reading the booklet (the video has a unique duration of 4 min)
Time frame: Assessed immediately after intervention
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.