Skip to content

One-time Informed Consent for Research in Prison

One-time Informed Consent for Research in Prison: A Randomized Comparison Between Audio-visual and Written Materials

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05505058
Enrollment
290
Registered
2022-08-17
Start date
2019-09-01
Completion date
2022-06-30
Last updated
2022-08-17

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

Conditions

Informed Consent

Keywords

Prison, Research ethics, Audio-visual intervention, Bioethics, Human rights

Brief summary

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.

Detailed description

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.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALAudio-visual material

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.

Sponsors

University Hospital, Geneva
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

Cross-sectional study with parallel randomized design (allocation 1:1)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
14 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* to be18 years old or more in the adult prison and 14 years old or more in the juvenile detention center * to be able to communicate in one of the languages of the study material * to agree to participate in this study.

Exclusion criteria

* presence of an acute psychiatric problem preventing the person from participating in the study

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Acceptance to sign the informed consentAssessed immediately after interventionBinary outcome, legal Swiss document

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Understanding of the informed consentAssessed immediately after interventionEight self-developed questions assessed as true/false and combined in a 0-8 points score
Evaluation of the informed consentAssessed immediately after interventionNine self-developed question assessed on a six-point Likert scale and averaged
Time to read/watchAssessed immediately after interventionTime in minutes for reading the booklet (the video has a unique duration of 4 min)

Countries

Switzerland

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 11, 2026