Skip to content

Decisional Capacity and Informed Consent in Fragile X Syndrome

Decisional Capacity and Informed Consent in Fragile X Syndrome

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02465931
Enrollment
152
Registered
2015-06-09
Start date
2016-03-14
Completion date
2017-03-21
Last updated
2019-03-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Fragile X Syndrome (FXS)

Keywords

Informed Consent, Fragile X Syndrome, Tablets, Decisional Capacity

Brief summary

The Decisional Capacity and Informed Consent in Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) project is for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, 1R01HD071987-01A1, and will provide the first comprehensive description of decisional capacity of individuals with FXS; identify individual, family, and experiential factors associated with variability in decisional capacity; determine the validity of caregiver and expert ratings; and develop evidence-based guidelines for categorizing decisional capacity of individuals with FXS. The researchers will develop a methodologically rigorous and conceptually grounded decision aid using digital technology to enhance participation of individuals with FXS in the consent process.

Detailed description

FXS is the most common inherited form of intellectual disability (ID). The typical male has an IQ (intelligence quotient) of 50 to 55, but involvement ranges from mild to severe. Females are generally less affected and have a broader range in function. Some have severe ID and adaptive impairments, but most have a normal or borderline intellectual ability. This wide range in cognitive skills leads to variable ability to make choices and live independently. Most research on individuals with FXS has been noninvasive, limited to parent surveys and psychological assessments. Studies such as these evoke few if any major ethical concerns, so the consent process typically involves a straightforward parental consent. Some studies have drawn blood, collected saliva, measured heart rate, or used neuroimaging, but until recently there has been a paucity of treatment research. This scenario has changed dramatically in the past several years. Advances in understanding the molecular basis of FXS have led to a new generation of treatments, and clinical trials are under way using a variety of compounds. The possibility of side effects and the potential for significant changes in behavior and ability elevate to a new level the importance of obtaining meaningful consent, not only from parents, but also from individuals with FXS. Researchers and Institutional Review Board (IRB) members need data to guide decisions about involving individuals with FXS in the consent process. Unfortunately, little is known about the extent to which individuals with FXS can be or are involved in decisions about research participation. This project will assess the range of decisional capacity in FXS, identify factors associated with individual differences in decisional capacity, validate a rating scale for categorizing decisional capacity, and develop a novel tablet-based decision aid technology to assist researchers and clinicians in maximizing decisional capacity and consent. This study will work toward achieving two overarching aims: 1) Characterize and explain individual differences in decisional capacity in FXS, 2) Design and evaluate the effect of a tablet-based decision aid on participation in the consent process for a hypothetical clinical trial. Ultimately, this study will provide important information about the nature of decisional capacity in FXS and validate a novel intervention to maximize successful participation in the consent process.

Interventions

OTHERPaper and Pencil Informed Consent

Paper-based informed consent form will be sent to participant and family before data collection visit. They will be able to review as many times as they wish before visit. During visits, simplified overview of informed consent form will be provided in person just once. For MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool (MacCAT) Questions, All questions will be asked after the disclosure information has been presented. Questions will have the same wording as experimental condition. Procedures will mimic MacCAT/flipchart (incorrect or partial credit will be given opportunity to answer question again after disclosure information is repeated). There will be multiple choice options rather than open-ended. Finally, data collection will be done through paper and pencil.

OTHERDigital Informed Consent Tool

Paper informed consent form will be sent to participant and family before data collection visit. They will be able to review as many times as they wish before visit. During visits, the participant can go through the tablet-based tool up to 3 times. All questions will be embedded within the vignettes/presentation of disclosure information. Question will use simplified wording, similar to flipchart. Procedures will mimic MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool (MacCAT) /flipchart (incorrect or partial credit will be given opportunity to answer question again after disclosure information is repeated). Multiple choice options will be utilized rather than open-ended. Finally, response data stored within tool and exported to dataset for analysis.

Sponsors

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
CollaboratorNIH
RTI International
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
SCREENING
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
12 Years to 40 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Places in the first 3 categories of the MacCAT flip chart * Can provide informed consent using a standard practice

Exclusion criteria

* Not in the first 3 categories of the MacCAT flipchart * Not able to provide informed consent without significant modifications to consent procedures

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Decisional Capacity - Understanding ScoreDay 1, immediately following presentation of the material in the intervention or comparison conditionMacArthur Decisional Capacity - understanding score, range 0 (no understanding) to 26 (perfect understanding) A summary score was calculated, ranging from 0-26. Scores were then translated into a percentage based on the number of questions answered. A score of 100% indicates that the participant answered each understanding question correctly on the first attempt.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Participants were recruited through research registries and convenience samples

Pre-assignment details

41 participants were excluded because they did not meet eligibility criteria

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Intervention Condition
Digital informed consent tool
44
Comparison Condition
Paper and pencil informed consent
45
Total89

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up911
Overall StudyProtocol Violation10
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject10

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicIntervention ConditionComparison ConditionTotal
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
17 Participants18 Participants35 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
27 Participants27 Participants54 Participants
Age, Continuous21.16 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.11
21.27 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.5
21.21 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.27
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
1 Participants1 Participants2 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
43 Participants44 Participants87 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
1 Participants2 Participants3 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
2 Participants0 Participants2 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
3 Participants2 Participants5 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
38 Participants40 Participants78 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
44 participants45 participants89 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
27 Participants25 Participants52 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
17 Participants20 Participants37 Participants
Stanford Binet 5 verbal IQ (intelligence quotient) score65.67 scores on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 17.26
69.48 scores on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 16.37
68.2 scores on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 17.8

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 440 / 45
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 440 / 45
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 440 / 45

Outcome results

Primary

Decisional Capacity - Understanding Score

MacArthur Decisional Capacity - understanding score, range 0 (no understanding) to 26 (perfect understanding) A summary score was calculated, ranging from 0-26. Scores were then translated into a percentage based on the number of questions answered. A score of 100% indicates that the participant answered each understanding question correctly on the first attempt.

Time frame: Day 1, immediately following presentation of the material in the intervention or comparison condition

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Intervention ConditionDecisional Capacity - Understanding Score74.4 percentage of understandingStandard Deviation 27.3
Comparison ConditionDecisional Capacity - Understanding Score75.1 percentage of understandingStandard Deviation 25.9
p-value: 0.89t-test, 1 sided

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 4, 2026