consent letter for participants in research

UCL Research Ethics

• Advice on writing an information sheet and consent form

Writing a Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form

Recruitment documents help people make informed choices about whether to participate in a research study. Find out how to write a Participant Information Sheet, example forms and further guidance.

Writing a Participant Information Sheet

Participant Information Sheets must be designed to assist participants to make informed choices. Potential recruits must be given sufficient information to allow them to decide whether or not they want to take part. The process of obtaining consent and the accompanying documentation must be approved by a research ethics committee and, where only verbal consent to research is contemplated include consideration of an appropriate process for witnessing the consent.

Researchers must take the steps necessary to ensure that all participants in the research understand the process in which they are to be engaged, including why their participation is necessary, how it will be used, and how and to whom it will be reported so that the prospective participant can make an informed decision about whether they really do want to take part.

It is highly recommended that the information provided is presented on headed paper and is accurate, clear and simple so that someone with a reading age of 8 would understand the contents (use short words, sentences and paragraphs). The information should be specific to the proposed research and appropriate for the social and cultural context in which is it being given. It is important to avoid technical terms, jargon and abbreviations, bias, coercion or any inappropriate inducements.

What should the Participant Information Sheet include:

• A friendly invitation to participate.
• A brief and simple explanation of the purposes of the research and a statement explaining how the participant was chosen and how many other participants will be involved in the study.
• A statement that participation is voluntary; refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled; and the participant may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits.
• A thorough explanation of the expected duration of participation in the research and the procedures to be followed.
• A description of any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts and any benefits to the participant. For research involving more than minimal risk, an explanation as to whether any compensation or any medical treatments are available if injury occurs and, if so, what they consist of, or where further information may be obtained.
• A statement describing the extent, if any, to which confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained.
• It is considered good practice for researchers to debrief participants at the conclusion of the research and to provide them with copies of any reports or other publications arising from their participation.
• If appropriate, a statement indicating that the data might be used for additional or subsequent research.
• An explanation of who to contact for answers to pertinent questions about the research and the rights of the participant and who to contact in the event of a research-related injury to the participant.
• If applicable, a statement declaring that each researcher who may have access to children (aged under 18) or vulnerable adults has undergone a satisfactory criminal records check.
• Remember to thank your participant for considering taking part in the study and include a statement indicating that the research study has been approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee.

Language and layout

It is highly recommended that the information provided is presented on headed paper and is accurate, clear, and simple. The information should be specific to the proposed research and appropriate for the social and cultural context in which is it being given. It is important to avoid technical terms, jargon, and abbreviations, bias, coercion, or any inappropriate inducements.

The following points should be considered when writing an information sheet:

• Use clear, non-technical language. We recommend that you refer to the  Plain English Campaign
• Use appropriate language for the target audience. For example, consider the different ways needed to communicate with primary school children as opposed to their teachers, or people with expertise in the area of study as opposed to people with no such knowledge
• Divide the text into paragraphs for ease of reading
• Consider using sub-headings for clarity, such as questions and answers
• Make sure the font and font size are legible.

Ask someone else to review your information sheet before it is circulated.

• Template Participant Information Sheet  (Word)
• Template Consent Form  (Word)
• Guidance on obtaining consent from research participants online (for online and in-person study designs)

Authors: Dr Pippa Lally, Behavioural Science and Health, and Jack Hindley, Information Services Division, UCL

• Recording & Obtaining Consent

UCL Research Ethics Committee Guidance Note 2: Extract from Nuffield Council on Bioethics website

Page last updated: April 2023

• Find My GCO
• IACUC applications (Cayuse Animal Management System)
• IBC Applications (eMUA)
• IRB Applications (RASS-IRB) External
• Institutional Profile & DUNS
• Rates and budgets
• Report external interests (COI)
• Join List Servs
• Ask EHS External
• Research Development Services
• Cornell Data Services External
• Find Your Next Funding Opportunity
• Travel Registry External
• RASS (Formerly Form 10 and NFA) External
• International research activities External
• Register for Federal and Non-Federal Systems
• Disclose Foreign Collaborations and Support
• Web Financials (WebFin2) External
• PI Dashboard External
• Research metrics & executive dashboards
• Research Financials (formerly RA Dashboard) External
• Subawards in a Proposal
• Proposal Development, Review, and Submission
• Planning for Animals, Human Participants, r/sNA, Hazardous Materials, Radiation
• Budgets, Costs, and Rates
• Collaborate with Weill Cornell Medicine
• Award Negotiation and Finalization
• Travel and International Activities
• Project Finances
• Project Modifications
• Research Project Staffing
• Get Confidential Info, Data, Equipment, or Materials
• Managing Subawards
• Animals, Human Participants, r/sNA, Hazardous Materials, Radiation
• Project Closeout Financials
• Project Closeout
• End a Project Early
• Protecting an Invention, Creation, Discovery
• Entrepreneurial and Startup Company Resources
• Gateway to Partnership Program
• Engaging with Industry
• Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)
• Export Controls
• Research with Human Participants
• Research Security
• Work with Live Vertebrate Animals
• Research Safety
• Regulated Biological Materials in Research
• Financial Management
• Conflicts of Interest
•   Search

IRB Consent Form Templates

A collection of informed consent, assent, and debriefing templates that can be used for your human participant research study.

General Consent Form Templates

Social and Behavioral Research Projects (last updated 03/16/2023)

Biomedical Research Projects (last updated 07/18/2022)

Consent Form Templates for Specific Biomedical Procedures

MRI and fMRI

Blood Collection by Finger Stick

Blood Collection by Venipuncture

Oral Consent Template

Guidance for Protocols Involving Oral Consent

Debriefing Template

Guidance and Template for Debriefing Participants

Studies Involving Children (Assent/Permission Forms)

Parent-Guardian Permission for Studies Involving Children

Sample Parental Notification Form

Sample Child Assent Form

Performance Release for Minors

Performance Releases

Performance Release for Adults

• Privacy Policy

Home » Informed Consent in Research – Types, Templates and Examples

Informed Consent in Research – Types, Templates and Examples

Table of Contents

Informed Consent in Research

Informed consent is a process of communication between a researcher and a potential participant in which the researcher provides adequate information about the study, its risks and benefits, and the participant voluntarily agrees to participate. It is a cornerstone of ethical research involving human subjects and is intended to protect the rights and welfare of participants.

Types of Informed Consent in Research

There are different types of informed consent in research , which may vary depending on the nature of the study, the type of participants, and the context. Some of the common types of informed consent in research include:

Written Consent

This is the most common type of informed consent, where participants are provided with a written document that explains the study and its requirements. The document typically includes information about the purpose of the study, procedures involved, risks and benefits, confidentiality, and participant rights. Participants are asked to sign the document as an indication of their willingness to participate.

Oral Consent

In some cases, oral consent may be used when a written document is not practical or feasible. Oral consent involves explaining the study and its requirements to participants verbally and obtaining their consent. This method may be used for studies with illiterate or visually impaired participants or when conducting research remotely.

Implied Consent

Implied consent is used in studies where participants’ actions are taken as an indication of their willingness to participate. For example, a participant may be considered to have given implied consent if they show up for a scheduled appointment for the study.

Opt-out Consent

This method is used when participants are given the opportunity to decline participation in a study. Participants are provided with information about the study and are given the option to opt-out if they do not wish to participate. This method is commonly used in population-based studies or surveys.

Assent is used in studies involving minors or participants who are unable to provide informed consent due to cognitive impairment or disability. Assent involves obtaining the agreement of the participant to participate in the study, along with the consent of a legally authorized representative.

Informed Consent Format in Research

Here’s a basic format for informed consent that can be customized for specific research studies:

• Introduction : Begin by introducing yourself and the purpose of the study. Clearly state that participation is voluntary and that participants can withdraw at any time without penalty.
• Study Overview : Provide a brief overview of the study, including its purpose, methods, and expected outcomes.
• Procedures : Describe the procedures involved in the study in clear, concise language. Include information about the types of data that will be collected, how they will be collected, and how long the study will take.
• Risks and Benefits : Outline the potential risks and benefits of participating in the study. Be honest and upfront about any discomfort, inconvenience, or potential harm that may be involved, as well as any potential benefits.
• Confidentiality and Privacy : Explain how participant data will be collected, stored, and used, and what measures will be taken to ensure confidentiality and privacy.
• Voluntary Participation: Emphasize that participation is voluntary and that participants can withdraw at any time without penalty. Explain how to withdraw from the study and who to contact if participants have questions or concerns.
• Compensation and Incentives: If applicable, explain any compensation or incentives that will be offered to participants for their participation.
• Contact Information: Provide contact information for the researcher or a representative from the research team who can answer questions and address concerns.
• Signature : Ask participants to sign and date the consent form to indicate their voluntary agreement to participate in the study.

Informed Consent Templates in Research

Here is an example of an informed consent template that can be used in research studies:

Introduction

You are being invited to participate in a research study. Before you decide whether or not to participate, it is important for you to understand why the research is being done, what your participation will involve, and what risks and benefits may be associated with your participation.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is [insert purpose of study].

If you agree to participate, you will be asked to [insert procedures involved in the study].

Risks and Benefits

There are several potential risks and benefits associated with participation in this study. Some of the risks include [insert potential risks of participation]. Some of the benefits include [insert potential benefits of participation].

Confidentiality

Your participation in this study will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by law. All data collected during the study will be stored in a secure location and only accessed by authorized personnel. Your name and other identifying information will not be included in any reports or publications resulting from this study.

Voluntary Participation

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. If you choose not to participate or if you withdraw from the study, there will be no negative consequences.

Contact Information

If you have any questions or concerns about the study, you can contact the investigator(s) at [insert contact information]. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact [insert name of institutional review board and contact information].

Statement of Consent

By signing below, you acknowledge that you have read and understood the information provided in this consent form and that you freely and voluntarily consent to participate in this study.

Participant Signature: _____________________________________ Date: _____________

Investigator Signature: ____________________________________ Date: _____________

Examples of Informed Consent in Research

Here’s an example of informed consent in research:

Title : The Effects of Yoga on Stress and anxiety levels in college students

Introduction :

We are conducting a research study to investigate the effects of yoga on stress and anxiety levels in college students. We are inviting you to participate in this study.

If you agree to participate, you will be asked to attend four yoga classes per week for six weeks. Before and after the six-week period, you will be asked to complete surveys about your stress and anxiety levels. Additionally, we will measure your heart rate variability at the beginning and end of the six-week period.

Risks and Benefits:

There are no known risks associated with participating in this study. However, the benefits of practicing yoga may include decreased stress and anxiety levels, increased flexibility and strength, and improved overall well-being.

Confidentiality:

All information collected during this study will be kept strictly confidential. Your name will not be used in any reports or publications resulting from this study.

Voluntary Participation:

Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You are free to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.

Contact Information:

If you have any questions or concerns about this study, you may contact the principal investigator at (phone number/email address).

By signing this form, I acknowledge that I have read and understood the above information and agree to participate in this study.

Participant Signature: ___________________________

Date: ___________________________

Researcher Signature: ___________________________

Importance of Informed Consent in Research

Here are some reasons why informed consent is important in research:

• Protection of participants’ rights : Informed consent ensures that participants understand the nature and purpose of the research, the risks and benefits of participating, and their rights as participants. It empowers them to make an informed decision about whether to participate or not.
• Ethical responsibility : Researchers have an ethical responsibility to respect the autonomy of participants and to protect them from harm. Informed consent is a crucial way to uphold these principles.
• Legality : Informed consent is a legal requirement in most countries. It is necessary to protect researchers from legal liability and to ensure that research is conducted in accordance with ethical standards.
• Trust : Informed consent helps build trust between researchers and participants. When participants understand the research process and their role in it, they are more likely to trust the researchers and the study.
• Quality of research : Informed consent ensures that participants are fully informed about the research and its purpose, which can lead to more accurate and reliable data. This, in turn, can improve the quality of research outcomes.

Purpose of Informed Consent in Research

Informed consent is a critical component of research ethics, and it serves several important purposes, including:

• Respect for autonomy: Informed consent respects an individual’s right to make decisions about their own health and well-being. It recognizes that individuals have the right to choose whether or not to participate in research, based on their own values, beliefs, and preferences.
• Protection of participants : Informed consent helps protect research participants from potential harm or risks that may arise from their involvement in a study. By providing participants with information about the study, its risks and benefits, and their rights, they are able to make an informed decision about whether to participate.
• Transparency: Informed consent promotes transparency in the research process. It ensures that participants are fully informed about the research, including its purpose, methods, and potential outcomes, which helps to build trust between researchers and participants.
• Legal and ethical requirements: Informed consent is a legal and ethical requirement in most research studies. It ensures that researchers obtain voluntary and informed agreement from participants to participate in the study, which helps to protect the rights and welfare of research participants.

Advantages of Informed Consent in Research

The advantages of informed consent in research are numerous, and some of the most significant benefits include:

• Protecting participants’ autonomy: Informed consent allows participants to exercise their right to self-determination and make decisions about whether to participate in a study or not. It also ensures that participants are fully informed about the risks, benefits, and implications of participating in the study.
• Promoting transparency and trust: Informed consent helps build trust between researchers and participants by providing clear and accurate information about the study’s purpose, procedures, and potential outcomes. This transparency promotes open communication and a positive research experience for all parties involved.
• Reducing the risk of harm: Informed consent ensures that participants are fully aware of any potential risks or side effects associated with the study. This knowledge enables them to make informed decisions about their participation and reduces the likelihood of harm or negative consequences.
• Ensuring ethical standards are met : Informed consent is a fundamental ethical requirement for conducting research involving human participants. By obtaining informed consent, researchers demonstrate their commitment to upholding ethical principles and standards in their research practices.
• Facilitating future research : Informed consent enables researchers to collect high-quality data that can be used for future research purposes. It also allows participants to make an informed decision about whether they are willing to participate in future studies.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

As the nation’s largest public research university, the Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) aims to catalyze, support and safeguard U-M research and scholarship activity.

The Office of the Vice President for Research oversees a variety of interdisciplinary units that collaborate with faculty, staff, students and external partners to catalyze, support and safeguard research and scholarship activity.

ORSP manages pre-award and some post-award research activity for U-M. We review contracts for sponsored projects applying regulatory, statutory and organizational knowledge to balance the university's mission, the sponsor's objectives, and the investigator's intellectual pursuits.

Ethics and compliance in research covers a broad range of activity from general guidelines about conducting research responsibly to specific regulations governing a type of research (e.g., human subjects research, export controls, conflict of interest).

eResearch is U-M's site for electronic research administration. Access: Regulatory Management (for IRB or IBC rDNA applications); Proposal Management (eRPM) for the e-routing, approval, and submission of proposals (PAFs) and Unfunded Agreements (UFAs) to external entities); and Animal Management (for IACUC protocols and ULAM).

Sponsored Programs manages the post-award financial activities of U-M's research enterprise and other sponsored activities to ensure compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws as well as sponsor regulations. The Office of Contract Administration (OCA) is also part of the Office of Finance - Sponsored Programs.

Ethics & Compliance

• eResearch IRB NextGen Project
• Class Assignments & IRB Approval
• Operations Manual (OM)
• Authorization Agreement Process
• ORCR Policies and Procedures
• Self-Assessment Tools
• Resources and Web Links
• Single IRB-of-Record (sIRB) Process
• Certificate of Confidentiality Process
• HRPP Education Resources
• How to Register a Clinical Trial
• Maintaining and Updating ClinicalTrial.gov Records
• How to Report Clinical Trial Results
• Research Study Participation - FAQ
• International Research
• Coordinated Services & Practices (CSP)
• Collaborative Research: IRB-HSBS sIRB Process
• Data Security Guidelines
• Research Incentive Guidelines
• Routine fMRI Study Guidelines
• IRB-HSBS Website Directory and Guidance
• Waivers of Informed Consent Guidelines
• IRB Review Process
• IRB Amendment Process
• Continuing Review Process
• Incident Reporting (AE/ORIO)
• IRB Repository Application
• IRB-HSBS Education
• Newsletter Archive

You are here

• Human Subjects
• IRB Health Sciences and Behavioral Sciences (HSBS)

Informed Consent Guidelines & Templates

U-m hrpp informed consent information.

See the HRPP Operations Manual, Part 3, Section III, 6 e .

The human subjects in your project must participate willingly , having been adequately informed about the research.  

• If the human subjects are part of a vulnerable population (e.g., prisoners, cognitively impaired individuals, or children), special protections are required.
• If the human subjects are children , in most cases you must first obtain the permission of parents in addition to the consent of the children.

Contact the IRB Office for more information .

See the Waiver Guidelines  for information about, and policies regarding, waivers for informed consent or informed consent documentation. 

See the updated  Basic Informed Consent Elements document  for a list of 2018 Common Rule basic and additional elements. 

Informed Consent Process

Informed consent is the process of telling potential research participants about the key elements of a research study and what their participation will involve.  The informed consent process is one of the central components of the ethical conduct of research with human subjects.  The consent process typically includes providing a written consent document containing the required information (i.e., elements of informed consent) and the presentation of that information to prospective participants.  

In most cases, investigators are expected to obtain a signature from the participant on a written informed consent document (i.e., to document the consent to participate) unless the IRB has waived the consent requirement or documentation (signature) requirement .

• Projects which collect biospecimens for genetic analysis must obtain documented (signed) informed consent.
• It is an ethical best practice to include an informed consent process for most exempt research .   IRB-HSBS reviews, as applicable, the IRB application for exempt research, but not the informed consent document itself.  A suggested consent template for exempt research can be found below under the References and Resources section.  A companion protocol template for exempt research may be found in the feature box, Related Information (top right).

Informed consent documents

An  informed consent document  is typically used to provide subjects with the information they need to make a decision to volunteer for a research study.  Federal regulations ( 45 CFR 46.116 ) provide the framework for the type of information (i.e., the "elements") that must be included as part of the consent process.  New with the revised 2018 Common Rule is the requirement that the consent document begin with a "concise and focused" presentation of key information  that will help potential participants understand why they might or might not want to be a part of a research study.  

Key Information Elements

The image below displays the  five elements identified in the preamble to the revised Final Rule  as suggested key information.  

Note: Element number 5 (alternative procedures) applies primarily to clinical research.

General Information & Tips for Preparing a Consent Document

Reading level.

Informed consent documents should be written in plain language at a level appropriate to the subject population, generally at an 8th grade reading level .  A best practice is to have a colleague or friend read  the  informed consent document for comprehension before submission with the IRB application.  Always:

For guidance on using plain language, examples, and more, visit: http://www.plainlanguage.gov/

• Tailor the document to the subject population.
• Avoid technical jargon or overly complex terms.
• Use  straightforward  language that is understandable.

Writing tips

The informed consent document should succinctly describe the research as it has been presented in the IRB application.

• Use the second (you) or third person (he/she) to present the study details.  Avoid use of the first person (I).  
• Include a statement of agreement at the conclusion of the informed consent document. 
• The consent doucment must be consistent with what is described in the IRB application.

Document Formating for Uploading into eResearch

• Remove "track changes" or inserted comments from the consent documentation prior to uploading the document into the IRB application (Section 10-1) for review.
• Use a consistent, clearly identified file naming convention for multiple consent/assent documents.

Informed Consent Templates

IRB-HSBS strongly recommends that investigators use one of the informed consent templates developed to include the required consent elements (per  45 CFR 46.116 ), as well as other required regulatory and institutional language.  The templates listed below include the new consent elements outlined in the 2018 Common Rule.

References and Resources

Informed consent guidance.

PDF.  Lists the basic and additional elements required for inclusion or to be included, as appropriate to the research, in the informed consent documentation, along with the citiation number [e.g., _0116(b)(1)] within the revised Common Rule.  New elements associated with the 2018 Common Rule are indicated in bold text.

Informed Consent Templates (2018 Common Rule)

Strongly recommended for studies that involve the collection of biospecimens and/or genetic or genomic analysis, particularly  federally sponsored clinical trials that are required to post a consent document on a public website.  Last updated:  04/10/2024.

(Word) Blank template with 2018 revised Common Rule key information and other required informed consent elements represented as section headers; includes instructions and recommended language.  It is strongly advised that you modify this template to draft a project-specific informed consent document for your study for IRB review and approval.  Last updated: 04/10/2024

Other Templates

Informed Consent documents are not reviewed by the IRB for Exempt projects.  However, researchers are ethically bound to conduct a consent process with subjects.  This template is suggested for use with Exempt projects. Last updated 4/17/24

(Word) General outline to create and post a flyer seeking participation in a human subjects study.  Includes instructions.

(Word) Two sample letters for site approval cooperation between U-M and other institutions, organizations, etc.  Letters of cooperation must be on U-M letterhead and signed by an appropriate official.  These letters are uploaded into the Performance Site section of the eResearch IRB application.

For use by U-M Dearborn faculty, staff, and students conducting non-exempt human subjects research using subject pools. Last updated 4/10/24

For use by U-M Dearborn faculty, staff, and students conducting exempt human subjects research using subject pools

Researchers who will conduct data collection that is subject to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) must use this template in tandem with a general consent for participation template/document.

• Brief protocol for exempt research including data management and security questionnaire

Child Assent and Parental Permission

• Child assent ages 3-6
• Child assent 7-11
• Parent permission
• Child assent 12-14

IRB-Health Sciences and Behavioral Sciences (IRB-HSBS)

Phone: (734) 936-0933 Fax: (734) 936-1852 [email protected]

• Human Subjects Protections

Sample Consent Forms

Consent form templates.

These consent form templates have been posted for your reference.  When completing and IRB submission in IRBIS, please fill in the application and use the consent form builder specific to your project.  For more information, please find instructions here .

Summary of Changes to the Regulations for Informed Consent:  Revised Common Rule Changes to Informed Consent and Waiver Requirements

Summary of Changes to Consent Documents:

• Informed Consent Documents – Version 2.0 Summary of Changes
• Informed Consent Documents – Version 2.1 Summary of Changes
• Informed Consent Documents – 10/26/2020 Summary of Changes
• Informed Consent Documents – 4/10/2023 Summary of Changes

Concise Summary examples can be found here .

Guidance on the use of plain language in consent forms:

• Clinical Research Glossary
• Webinar: The Promise of Plain Language: Launching a Glossary to Support Participant Understanding of Clinical Research – Recording & Slides

There are a few additional forms that are not provided online and may be accessed below.  As needed, these should be completed and uploaded to your IRB application.

Foreign Language Consent Forms

COVID-19 Related Forms:

• Spanish-IRB-COVID Information Sheet
• Spanish COVID Consent Letter v2
• Spanish COVID Informational Sheet Translation Certificate

Informed Consent Short Form (for a single subject who may be illiterate, or otherwise unable to read the consent form — used when full consent form has to be read or translated for subject).

• Informed Consent Short Form Guidance
• Simplified Chinese

HIPAA Templates

• Sample HIPAA Authorization Template
• Sample HIPAA Authorization Template in Spanish ( Certification )

Informed Consent and Consent Forms for Research Participants

Informed consent is a communication process by which researchers reach agreement with people about whether they wish to participate in research. Confusing informed consent with a signed consent form may violate the ethical intent of informed consent, which is to communicate clearly and respectfully, to foster trust, comprehension, and good decision making, and to ensure that participation is voluntary.

Consent forms are often written in “legalese” and are long, complex, and often inappropriate to the culture or language of the potential subject, insulting, and virtually impossible for most people to comprehend. They convey to some the impression that signing such a formal-looking document commits them to participation. Among subjects who willingly sign documents, most sign the consent form without reading it.

How has this come to pass? Early concern with ethics of human research was about biomedical research and focused on the necessity of obtaining informed consent. Over the decades, the elements of informed consent have grown in number, as has the idea that informed consent is a form that is to be signed by the subject. According to the Federal Regulation of Human Research 46.117(a):

Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, informed consent shall be documented by the use of a written consent form approved by the IRB and signed by the subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative. A copy shall be given to the person signing the form.

However, many researchers and the Institutional Review Boards that govern their research fail to recognize that 46.117(c) provides for a waiver of signed consent forms:

(c) An IRB may waive the requirement for the investigator to obtain a signed consent form for some or all subjects if it finds either: (1) That the only record linking the subject and the research would be the consent document and the principal risk would be potential harm resulting from a breach of confidentiality. Each subject will be asked whether the subject wants documentation linking the subject with the research, and the subject’s wishes will govern, or (2) That the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of the research context.

The reason for obtaining a signed consent form has always been much more to protect the researcher and the institution than to serve the interests of the research subject. In case the subject claims later that consent was inadequate or omitted, the researcher can counter by showing the form. Recently, the Office of Human Research Protection has imposed highly publicized and costly sanctions against a few research institutions. Understandably, IRBs and research administrators consider it in their self-interest to make highly conservative decisions. Since IRBs must take steps to justify waiving documentation of informed consent by deeming the research to be minimal risk, many consider it safer not to do so, fearing that such an action might leave them open to questions by the OHRP. Thus, the reason for obtaining a signed consent form is typically to protect the institution, not the subject. Researchers, science, institutions, subjects, and IRBs would all be better off if they made intelligent interpretations of the requirements of the Common Rule.

The Social and Behavioral Sciences Working Group has made various recommendations based on the Common Rule, designed to guide social and behavioral researchers and IRBs out of such conundrums. The authors, both members of the Working Group, developed recommendations concerning informed consent, some of which are summarized here:

1. Informed consent should take the form of an open, easily understood communication process. Typically, this means a friendly verbal exchange between researcher and subject, with a written summary of the information for the subject to keep, as appropriate. (The copy for the subject to keep would be inappropriate if the written record of the subject’s participation could be damaging to the subject, as when the research is about domestic violence, or illegal behavior). Both the verbal and written discussion should be brief, and simply phrased at such a level that all of the subjects can understand it.

2. Subjects must receive enough easily understood, accurate information to judge whether the risk or inconvenience involved is at a level they can accept. The responsibility rests with the investigator to describe any risks accurately and understandably. There are many kinds of minor or everyday risks or inconveniences that most persons would gladly undertake if it were their choice to do so, but which they would not wish to have imposed upon them unilaterally. However, some may make a rational decision that the experience would be too stressful, risky, or unpleasant for some idiosyncratic reason that applies to them and not to other subjects.

3. Especially when the research procedure is long and complex, the researcher must make it quite clear that the subject is free to ask questions at any time. Informed consent, as a conversation (not a form), needs to be available throughout the research, as subjects do not necessarily develop questions or concerns about their participation until they are well into the research experience. For example, a discussion of confidentiality may not capture subjects’ attention or comprehension until they are asked some quite personal questions in the ensuing research experience.

4. When subjects can readily refuse to participate by hanging up the phone or tossing out a mailed survey, the informed consent can be extremely brief (a sentence or two). Courtesy and professionalism require that the identity of the researcher and research institution be mentioned, along with the nature and purpose of the research. However, if there are no risks, benefits, or confidentiality issues involved, these topics and the right to refuse to participate need not be mentioned, as such details would be gratuitous and might decrease participation by implying greater risk that actually exists. If the researcher has any connection with the institution at which the subjects receive health care or other essential services, it is necessary to mention the right of the research subject to refuse or withdraw without prejudice. Such rights may be honored implicitly by making it clear that you are asking their permission to involve them as research subjects.

5. Verbal informed consent need not be detailed and written consent is not appropriate when the research is not concerned with sensitive personal information and when subjects are peers or superiors of the researcher.

6. The cultural norms and life-styles of subjects should be considered when deciding how to approach informed consent. For example, research on homeless injection drug users should probably be preceded by a several week-long process of “hanging out” and talking with them. The resulting informal communication will raise issues they wish to discuss with the researcher. The conditions under which the research is conducted can then be negotiated orally between the researcher and the community members, as appropriate. Written documents and signed forms would expose subjects to risk of arrest and serve no redeeming purpose.

7. A wide range of media are appropriate for administering informed consent. Video tapes, brochures, group discussions, web sites, community newsletters, and the “grape vine” can be more appropriate ways of communicating with potential subjects than the potentially confusing formal consent forms that often are used.

8. When written or signed consent places subjects at risk, it must be waived. There are times when the written record is the only evidence that the subject has participated in a study in which there is acknowledgement or appearance of situations that would place the subject at risk.

9. When it is important to have some record of the informed consent but when written or signed consent would place the subject at risk or be difficult for the subject to read, one useful procedure is to have a trusted colleague witness the verbal consent.

10. Community consultation, or meeting with community leaders of the potential subjects, is a useful way to plan research that is likely to raise sensitive questions among those to be studied and members of their community. This is not a substitute for individual informed consent, but often clears the way for potential subjects to be ready to decide whether to participate.

11. In certain circumstances, persons are not in a position to decide whether to consent until immediately after their participation, e.g., in brief sidewalk interviews, which persons are likely to welcome.

12. Some research cannot validly be conducted if all details are disclosed at the outset. The alternatives to outright deception of subjects are to a) obtain permission to provide only a description of what the subject will experience, with an agreement that the full details of the study will be disclosed afterward; b) obtain permission to engage in concealment or deception with the understanding that pilot research has shown that peers of the subject do not find such concealment or deception objectionable and that a full explanation will follow their participation, c) explain that the subject might be enrolled in one of several possible conditions and to gain permission to disclose in which of these the subject was actually enrolled after his or her participation is completed.

Author’s Note: The Social and Behavioral Sciences Working Group (formerly a part of the National Human Research Protections Advisory Council but now an independent body) chaired by Felice Levine helped to develop these ideas.

Reference Melton, G., Levine, R. J., Koocher, G., Rosethal, R., & Thompson, W. (1988). Community Consultation in Socially Sensitive Research: Lessons from Clinical Trials on Treatments for AIDS. American Psychologist , 43, 573-581.

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

About the Authors

Joan Sieber is professor of psychology at California State University, Hayward. She received her bachelor's, master's, and doctorate from the University of Delaware. Robert J. Levine is professor of medicine and co-chair of the interdisciplinary bioethics project at Yale University. He is also the founding editor of IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research.

Making a Career Choice: Follow in Your Own Footsteps

In a guest column, APS Fellow Barbara Wanchisen shares observations and ideas on broadening career opportunities for psychological scientists.

Student Notebook: Finding Your Path in Psychological Science

Feeling unsure or overwhelmed as an early-career psychology student? Second-year graduate student Mariel Barnett shares advice to quell uncertainties.

Matching Psychology Training to Job Market Realities

APS President Wendy Wood discusses how graduate programs can change the habit of focusing on academic-career preparation.

Privacy Overview

Information-consent letters and forms

An information-consent letter is used most often to inform a potential participant about a research study and to document a participant's agreement to take part in the study.

Sample information-consent letters and forms

Statements to include if:

• providing remuneration ;
• using a draw ;
• conducting research with children ;
• collecting data using online surveys/questionnaires (e.g., Qualtrics), Skype/MS Teams/Zoom platforms or other online data collection methods ; and/or
• anonymous survey . 

If providing remuneration include the following in the information letter:

• of cash or near-cash with value less than $300 include: "The amount received is taxable. It is your responsibility to report this amount for income tax purposes."
• value $300 or more include the following: "The amount received is taxable. You will be asked to sign a release of personal information form for purposes of remuneration and for issuing a tax slip."

If using a draw include the following in the information letter:

"In appreciation of the time you have given to this study, you can enter your name into a draw for 1 of X prizes. The prizes include [insert prizes and dollar value, for example "a movie pass or a $10 Tim Horton's gift card"]. Your odds of winning one of the prizes is 1 in X [or if the odds is unknown or difficult to determine the following can be stated: "Your odds of winning one of the prizes is based on the number of individuals who participate in the study. We expect that approximately X individuals will take part in the study."] Information collected to draw for the prizes will not be linked to the study data in any way, and this identifying information will be stored separately, then destroyed after the prizes have been provided. The amount received is taxable. It is your responsibility to report this amount for income tax purposes."

If conducting research with children where you may be obligated to disclose information that would need to be reported include the following in the information letter to the parents/guardians:

• "In cases where researchers believe that a child may need protection from harm, researchers must by law report this information to authorities."

  Updated: If using an online platform (e.g., MS Teams, Zoom) to collect data from surveys, interviews or focus groups, include the following language in the information letter.

If using a University of Waterloo supported platform (e.g., MS Teams, Zoom):

• “The interview will be conducted over an online platform, [name of platform]. [Name of platform] has implemented technical, administrative, and physical safeguards to protect the information provided via the Services from loss, misuse, and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration, or destruction. However, no Internet transmission is ever fully secure or error free.” 

If using another platform (e.g., Google Forms, Survey Monkey) :

• “The interview will be conducted over [insert name of platform]. When information is transmitted over the internet privacy cannot be guaranteed. There is always a risk your responses may be intercepted by a third party (e.g., government agencies, hackers). University of Waterloo researchers will not collect or use internet protocol (IP) addresses or other information which could link your participation to your computer or electronic device without first informing you." 

Internet Survey Using  Qualtrics : (Note: this statement can be used because uWaterloo has a license for this software) 

• "You will be completing the study by an online survey operated by Qualtrics. Qualtrics has implemented technical, administrative, and physical safeguards to protect the information provided via the Services from loss, misuse, and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration, or destruction. However, no Internet transmission is ever fully secure or error free. 

[If IP tracking is turned off]: “Please Note: We do not collect or use internet protocol (IP) addresses or other information which could link your participation to your computer or electronic device.” 

[If IP tracking is not turned off]: “Qualtrics temporarily collects your computer IP address to avoid duplicate responses in the dataset but will not collect information that could identify you personally.” 

Internet Survey ( Using something other than Qualtrics ) 

• “When information is transmitted or stored on the internet privacy cannot be guaranteed. There is always a risk your responses may be intercepted by a third party (e.g., government agencies, hackers). [Name of company] temporarily collects your [company/contributor] ID and computer IP address to avoid duplicate responses in the dataset but will not collect information that could identify you personally." 

For researchers who wish to offer an alternative to online participation or for participant groups with limited access to the internet please include:

• "If you prefer not to participate using this online method, please contact one of the researchers so you can participate using an alternative method such as a paper-based questionnaire or telephone call. The alternate method may decrease anonymity but confidentiality will be maintained."

If conducting an anonymous survey include something similar to the following in the information letter:

• "Because this is an anonymous survey the researchers have no way of identifying you or getting in touch with you should you choose to tell us something about yourself or your life experiences."

Waterloo finance policy on remuneration to research participants

Informed consent process and checklist for creating an information consent letter

Informed consent

Information and guidance for researchers, what is informed consent.

Informed consent is one of the founding principles of research ethics. Its intent is that human participants can enter research freely (voluntarily) with full information about what it means for them to take part, and that they give consent before they enter the research.

Consent should be obtained before the participant enters the research (prospectively), and there must be no undue influence on participants to consent. The minimum requirements for consent to be informed are that the participant understands what the research is and what they are consenting to.  

There are two distinct stages to a standard consent process for competent adults:

• Stage 1 (giving information) : the person reflects on the information given; they are under no pressure to respond to the researcher immediately.  
• Stage 2 (obtaining consent): the researcher reiterates the terms of the research, often as separate bullet points or clauses; the person agrees to each term (giving explicit consent) before agreeing to take part in the project as a whole. Consent has been obtained.

Researchers should ensure that they comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) during and after the consent process, especially if they will be collecting 'special category' (ie sensitive) data or personal data in the course of their research (also refer to the advice on consent in research involving children ).  See also the guidance on data protection and research and the data protection checklist for use when preparing an application for ethical review.

Where your research includes filming or photography, you should refer to specific guidance in the Photography and GDPR toolkit .

Written or oral consent – which process suits your project?

Which process to use depends on the research project (its context, design and participants), though an oral process is usually only appropriate where a written process is not feasible. Any consent process must be understandable to the participants concerned. Please see the sections below to find out about different processes which may be used depending on the context, as well as informed consent templates for each process.

Written informed consent process

A written process is used where:

• Reading and signing forms is not problematic.
• The research is complex or has multiple stages.
• First access to the research participants is by providing written information.

Though opinions differ about the legal force of signed consent forms, they provide extra proof that the terms of consent have been understood. This can be especially important when seeking consent for copyright over data, or for future uses of data. Also, future funders or regulators may want written proof of the terms of original consent.

For literate participants who are not put off by written information, a written process is often a straightforward way of communicating the 'research contract'.

Between the provision of information and obtaining consent, the participant should be given a reasonable amount of time to consider whether to consent and to ask questions, though the time given depends on the project design, the context of the research and the participants.

The written consent templates below can be adapted to suit your study.

Oral informed consent process

An oral consent process is where researcher and participant have a conversation to give information and obtain consent.  There is no paper form to sign. It is normally used:

• where literacy is a problem
• where there are cultural or political concerns with signing contract-like documents
• where either the researcher and/or the participant could be put at risk by existence of a paper record
• where time for consent is limited, eg a chance interaction between researcher and participant (although you should not use an oral process merely to correct poor planning of research)
• for research conducted via remote video conferencing software

It may also be more appropriate when interviewing elite participants as part of the research.

For all other research, how you arrange the oral process depends on how you will encounter your participants (for example email, phone, an on-the-street-meeting by chance). Between the information-giving and consent stage the participant should be given a reasonable amount of time to consider whether to consent, though this depends on the project design, the type of participants and the context of the research.

When obtaining oral consent, please ensure you are recording the consent process either using a recording device (for example audio recorder if you are conducting an interview that needs to be recorded) or, if participants do not agree to audio recording or if using or keeping audio records is unsafe, by using a researcher record of oral consent template or completing a written consent form on their behalf.

The oral consent templates below can be adapted to suit your study, but careful consideration is required to ensure that these are appropriate for the research and the participants.

Informed consent templates

Written informed consent process (including online surveys), template agreements, cases where 'implied consent' may be acceptable (for example online surveys).

Researchers should always aim to inform people fully and obtain appropriate consent. However, in some cases the research may be straightforward enough that a separate, deliberate process for obtaining consent is not needed. In these cases participants, by their actions, imply consent. This is seen most often in research:

BPG 06 Internet-mediated research

Template information sheet for online research

• where no participant personal details are obtained
• where the topic of research is very low risk and no special category data will be collected
• where participation is confined to one small task, eg completing a survey or simple pencil or computer task

Please note: consent cannot be inferred from inaction (eg failure to move away from a camera).  

When consent works against the aims of research

If your research employs deception, you will not be able to inform participants fully about your project’s true aims. In this case please check if you can fully apply the CUREC approved procedure on research involving the deception of participants . If the deception raises ethical concerns such that the application is not covered by this procedure please complete a CUREC 2 application form.

Some research settings evolve very rapidly (for example in conflict studies). Similarly, some research participants may only be revealed in time-poor or emergency settings (eg heart attack patients). This infringes on the standard information-giving stage of research. The vulnerability of participants in those settings may justify an expedited or fully waived consent process. Again it is important to describe the research setting clearly. You may need to complete a CUREC 2 application to the relevant committee in these cases: please check with your DREC or your IDREC .

Last updated Thursday 2 December 2021

Related links

• Where and how to apply for ethical review
• Committee information
• Research ethics FAQs and glossary
• Research integrity and ethics policy
• Ethics committee contacts

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Health Expect
• v.25(4); 2022 Aug

Keys to improving the informed consent process in research: Highlights of the i‐CONSENT project

Jaime fons‐martinez.

1 Foundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research of Valencia Region, FISABIO, Valencia Spain

Cristina Ferrer‐Albero

2 Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Valencia Spain

Javier Diez‐Domingo

Associated data.

The article has no data.

The ethical and legal governance of all aspects of informed consent in research is becoming increasingly extensive and complex. Instead of a single directive, informed consent is governed by a series of international rules applied to biomedical research, clinical trials and biobanks, while various ethical guidelines for research have been published by different international bodies.

Informed consent is an essential part of any research involving humans, but the array of available guidelines can complicate the informed consent process for sponsors, researchers and participants. Sponsors, in particular, find it difficult to adapt the informed consent process to the characteristics of the participants. Moreover, because of the length and complexity of informed consents, some participants may misconstrue key points 1 and agree to participate in a trial that they do not fully understand. In these cases, the decision on their participation is mainly based on discussions with the researcher, which lacks traceability.

In 2017, the European Commission responded to the need to improve the informed consent process and informed consent readability by launching the project ‘Improving the guidelines of informed consent, including vulnerable populations, under a gender perspective (i‐CONSENT)’ (Grant Agreement 741856).

The ethical and legal framework of the i‐CONSENT project was later supplemented with the publication ‘Guidelines for Tailoring the Informed Consent Process in Clinical Studies ’, which includes more specific guidelines for developing evidence‐based patient information materials that take into consideration gender, multiculturalism and the vulnerable populations that are usually underrepresented in research. The guidelines also provide a series of easy‐to‐read and easy‐to‐use fact sheets and tools that complement the main document, highlight the importance of various aspects of the informed consent process and offer recommendations on how to implement best practices. These fact sheets include, among others, how to present study information in consent materials; how to assess participant understanding; how to establish an appropriate relationship between the investigator and the participant during the process; and how to address some of the major ethical challenges that may arise in pandemic situations such as COVID‐19.

This article summarizes the key aspects of the informed consent process from the perspective of the i‐CONSENT project.

During the development of the guidelines, multiple reviews of the scientific literature and ethical and legal texts were carried out, as well as workshops, seminars and surveys that allowed us to obtain the opinions on different aspects of informed consent of different people, including representatives of patients and potential participants in clinical studies, experts in legislation, experts in ethics, members of ethics committees, investigators, members of the pharmaceutical industry, legislators and cultural mediators.

The above‐mentioned guidelines and the rest of the project deliverables can be accessed from the CORDIS platform. 2

1. INFORMED CONSENT AS A PROCESS

The main paradigm—an approach suggested earlier by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences—is to view informed consent as a process rather than a bureaucratic procedure aimed merely at obtaining a signature on a document. This guideline identifies and describes five informed consent process phases that are set in motion the moment a potential participant receives information about a particular study and end when the study is completed (Figure  1 ). It also guides the researcher through each phase of the informed consent process and ensures the autonomy of the potential participant in each phase.

The informed consent process in clinical studies

The guidelines, which supplement existing informed consent documentation, introduce novel recommendations in three directions: the adaptation of the informed consent process to potential participants; the improvement of the participant's experience; and the use of new tools to guide the informed consent process. The perspective of potential participants in clinical research was taken into account in the development and design of the guidelines. 2

2. ADAPTATION OF THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS TO POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS

The first recommendation is to adapt the informed consent process to the preferences, interests and needs of the potential participant, focusing on the target population throughout the research process. Representatives of the target population should be involved in all steps, including designing and cocreating the document, implementing the informed consent process and receiving subsequent feedback that can improve the initial process. Design Thinking methodology is recommended to tailor the information to the audience.

This new approach involves two‐way, seamless interaction with participants 3 that allows the researcher to detect and clarify concepts that are likely to be misunderstood, especially by people with low health literacy, and avoids overwhelming potential participants with excessive information. The strategy of providing information in layers allows participants to decide for themselves how much information they receive about a research study.

3. PRESENTING INFORMATION IN DIFFERENT FORMATS

In today's world, reading and learning habits have changed, and written texts now include other elements such as hyperlinks, multimedia, images and infographics. The informed consent should be tailored to social changes that facilitate understanding and should be presented in different formats, which may or may not be combined with new technologies. 4 The participants, depending on their personal characteristics, may choose the format that best suits their preferences and needs.

4. NEW TOOLS TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION

The guidelines include practical tools and checklists that help users meet regulatory and stakeholder requirements and identify and review all key aspects that must be covered by the informed consent process. This approach will improve understanding and satisfy the needs and preferences of potential participants.

The guidelines also include 14 fact sheets and six tools that highlight the different issues addressed in the informed consent process and offer recommendations on how to implement best practices. The fact sheets explore in greater depth topics such as presenting the informed consent, evaluating comprehension, information and using decision‐making tools. The tools address matters that are not strictly related to the informed consent process, but that are useful for improving the process, for example, communication skills, writing a thank you letter or methods for incorporating the perspective of the participants.

5. GUIDELINES' VALIDATION

The recommendations put forward have been validated at several levels.

The RAND/UCLA method for validating clinical guidelines was used to analyse and validate the appropriateness of the main recommendations, particularly the most innovative aspects. 5 The evaluation panel comprised patient representatives, investigators, experts in ethics, pharmaceutical industry representatives and regulators, all of them external to the project. Fifty‐three recommendations were evaluated. Of these, 43 were considered ‘appropriate’; 10 were considered ‘uncertain’; and none were considered ‘inappropriate’. All recommendations rated medians of 6.5–9 on a 1–9 scale (1 = ‘extremely inappropriate’, 5 = ‘uncertain’, 9 = ‘extremely appropriate’). Discrepancies were discussed by the expert panel, and some recommendations were adapted.

To validate the recommendations in a target population, three pilot consent forms were designed for hypothetical clinical trials with vaccines, one for children, one for pregnant women and one for adults, in three culturally different countries. Since these were not real clinical trials, only the recommendations for drafting information (step 2 of the Informed Consent Process; see Figure  1 ) were taken into consideration in the informed consent process. These recommendations include the involvement of potential participants in the design and piloting of consent materials. In two of the three hypothetical clinical trials, materials were cocreated with potential participants through design thinking sessions. In the third, a survey was conducted to learn the needs and preferences of potential participants. All three materials were piloted with potential participants.

To finalize the project, the guidelines were used to design patient information for the VIGIRA study (EudraCT No. 2019‐001186‐33, funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III Research Grants) on the effects of an influenza vaccine in children aged 12–35 months during the 2019–2020 and 2020–2021 influenza seasons. The materials were designed WITH and FOR parents of children who could potentially participate in the study. In this case, cocreation was done through interviews with parents of potential participants. In addition, feedback from researchers and participants of the study in previous seasons was also used.

The i‐CONSENT project has compiled and analysed legislation and ethical recommendations applicable in Europe, identifying the aspects that generate most uncertainty for the investigator, for example: how to adapt it to the needs of the potential participant, how to express it in plain language, how to assess its comprehension, how to apply gender and multicultural perspectives, and so forth. This analysis has made possible the elaboration of more specific recommendations on the informed consent process, which help to achieve the objectives set by the international bodies responsible for guaranteeing the protection and autonomy of patients participating in medical research.

The recommendations of the i‐CONSENT project have been developed to complement and facilitate the implementation of international ethical guidelines and European and national legislation on clinical research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research has been carried out in the framework of the European project “Improving the guidelines for Informed Consent, including vulnerable populations, under a gender perspective (i‐CONSENT)”. The i‐CONSENT project has been funded by Horizon 2020, SwafS‐17‐2016, Grant Agreement number 741856. This publication reflects the views only of the authors.

Jaime Fons‐Martinez and Cristina Ferrer‐Albero contributed equally to this study and are considered coprimary authors.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Consent to participate

Researchers must obtain consent from all living participants for their participation in a research project and maintain a record of their consent. This still applies to all research whether interacting with participants face-to-face or using remote or online methods.

There may be exceptional circumstances, such as when working with a large external dataset accessed via a 'gatekeeper', where individual consent may not be appropriate. If you think this applies to your research, seek guidance from your School ethics committee (SEC) . 

That consent must be:

• fully informed , requiring that participants are provided with key information about the project that they can consider before deciding whether to take part
• freely given , meaning that any issues such as dependent relationships have been addressed.

Researchers must keep a written record of the consent provided by participants and the information provided to the participant upon which they provided their consent.

Obtaining consent

Participants should always receive a copy of a  participant information sheet (PIS) (Word)  in a format that they can understand and retain. It may be necessary to make adaptations to meet literacy or accessibility requirements (for examples, see the simplified template documents  developed for use with children). If the PIS is included as a downloadable document as part of an online survey or consent statement, the PIS information should also be relayed in the web page text to maximise the opportunity for participants to both read the information and retain a copy before they consent. 

Written consent

The default position for all research is that researchers should take written consent using the  consent form (Word) , because it was developed to capture the key ethical and legal issues and provides the most robust written record of participant consent.

Other forms of consent

There may be circumstances where it is more appropriate to use one of the methods described below.

If using any of these methods, there should be a good rationale and clear documentation of how consent will be obtained and how this will be recorded. If using an alternative to written consent results in additional ethical considerations, researchers should also describe these and how they will be mitigated in their ethical review application form (Word) .

Researchers should let their participants know that this is how their consent will be recorded so that participants understand at what point in the research interaction they are giving their consent. 

Verbal consent

If a researcher wants to take verbal consent, they must give a rationale for this in their  ethical review application form (Word) – for example, there may be accessibility or literacy reasons why other methods cannot be used.  Researchers must provide in their ethical application an explicit description of how they will maintain a robust written record of the consent provided by participants and the information provided to the participant upon which they provided their consent.

Researchers should relay the contents of the consent form (or a pre-prepared script with the same effect) to the participant and ask them to indicate their consent to each statement. 

A record must be kept of:

• the script or statements used
• the participant's details
• the date and time consent was obtained
• what medium of interaction was used (i.e. telephone)

A transcript of the consent interaction should be retained with the project paperwork in lieu of a consent form.

An online consent statement

Researchers can use the templates given on the Online Questionnaire and Survey guidance  to create a consent statement in Qualtrics and ask the participant to complete this. This must be documented, and participants’ completed 'questionnaires' retained with the project paperwork. As this is the most anonymous form of consent, researchers may need to consider whether this brings additional ethical considerations such as those described below under ‘Obtaining consent when using online or remote methods’.

Consent by return email 

Researchers can use their University email address to send participants an email where the consent form statements are in the body text of the email. Participants can then reply to the email, indicating 'yes' to each statement and sign off with their name and the date. These emails must then be retained, including the header information with emails addresses and dates, with the project paperwork. 

Obtaining consent when using online or remote methods

If solely using online methods to interact with participants (i.e. for recruitment or data collection) it may be more challenging to obtain written consent, as this is traditionally done by having the participant physically sign a consent form. It is therefore likely that researcher may use one of the other forms of the consent described above.

It is important that consent is always fully informed. It is therefore essential that the participant always receives a participant information sheet (PIS) (Word) in a format that they can keep indefinitely. This will most likely mean emailing a copy to the participant, placing the file online (i.e. on OneDrive) for the participant to download, or possibly posting them a copy. 

Once the participant has received the PIS and had time to consider whether to take part, their consent should be obtained and recorded using one of the methods described above.

Considerations when obtaining consent online – identity and anonymity

Researchers should be aware that it can be harder to verify the identity of participants when using online or remote methods and that there may be circumstances where the ‘normal’ consent process may compromise participants’ wishes to remain anonymous.  

Not verifying participants’ identities can bring considerations over the integrity of the data (i.e. whether participants are of the target group) and concerns that participants may be children, adolescents or vulnerable adults.

Researchers should try to verify the identity of participants when possible and appropriate to ensure that participants are adults and not of a vulnerable group as well as to ensure the integrity of the data.

If the research is sensitive and where there is a risk to participants if they were indeed vulnerable and where it is not possible to verify this, researchers should carefully consider if their research may be better conducted using face-to-face methods.

However, there may also be circumstances where it is inappropriate to try to establish the ‘real’ identity of your participants and where doing so would compromise their choice to participate anonymously. In these cases, it may be more appropriate to gain the consent of a ‘user’ (i.e. username, pseudonym, online persona) or to use a ‘checkbox’ style consent statement as with Online Surveys and Questionnaires.

These issues are a particular challenge in online and remote data collection and researchers should ensure they weigh up the risks and benefits of their approach to consent in their ethical application.  

Approach to consent: opt-in vs opt-out

To be freely given and fully informed, consent must be opt-in; opt-out consent is not acceptable.

Ongoing or continuous consent

It is common to think of consent as being a single event where a participant signs a consent form. While this may be appropriate where contact with participants is very brief, it is often be better to think of consent as an ongoing process, particularly in long-term or longitudinal projects:

“There is considerable ‘fluidity’ in consenting – it is not an event, it is a process… … [consent] may best be seen as episodic with distinctive ‘markers’ throughout – only one of which may be a signed consent form.” Iphofen, R. (2015). Research ethics in ethnography/anthropology. European Commission

Consider that research may cover topics the participant may not have expected, prompted a reaction they had not anticipated, or their capacity to consent or personal circumstances may change. Being transparent about the research, maintaining open communication with participants, seeking renewed verbal assent or watching out for non-verbal cues can all be ways of continuing an ongoing consent process. Researchers are encouraged to involve participants in all stages of research as part of a collaborative or participatory approach – norms can vary by discipline, study design and population, and so researchers should seek out guidance and resources that are appropriate to the context of their research. 

The right to withdraw

Consent to participate is only freely given by participants if they are able to withdraw their consent to participate whenever they decide to.

Participants must be explicitly informed that they can withdraw their participation whenever they want and reassured that they will face no disbenefit from withdrawing their participation. This is particularly important when there are  dependent relationships .

Although participants can withdraw their participation in a project whenever they want, the ability of participants to withdraw the data they have contributed depends on when they make the request to withdraw their data from the project and whether the data has been anonymised. Data that has been anonymised cannot be withdrawn, because it is not possible to know which data relates to which participant.

Data protection legislation allows for a balance between the needs of researchers and the rights of research participants. The University decided that its researchers must always explicitly provide their participants with the right to withdraw their un-anonymised data (the right to erasure) up to the end of the project’s data gathering period, despite the law not requiring this, as detailed in the  research data protection guidance . Researchers do this by adjusting the relevant sentences on the  participant information sheet (PIS) (Word)  and  consent form (Word) (guidance on how to do this is provided in the documents).

Researchers conducting focus groups should note that participants withdrawing data may adversely impact the integrity of the data for the entire focus group i.e. by removing context behind other participants’ responses. Researchers are therefore encouraged to consider this when forming their ‘right to withdraw’ periods in their Participant Information Sheet.

Consent and use of secondary data

Researchers must ensure that when they are using secondary data, they meet the requirements of the data source and that using this data is consistent with the consent originally given by participants. For example, many data archives require that researchers agree to their terms of use and satisfy conditions such as around data management and document the original consent arrangements. For more on this visit the guidance page on secondary data . 

• Reliance Consultation
• Consent Cover Letter Template
• Office for the Protection of Research Subjects (OPRS)
• Forms, Guidance, Resources

Download File

This template should be used as a consent document for simple survey or questionnaire research.  This document should be used when a signature will  not  be collected. For example, for an online survey the participant reads this consent cover letter which informs them about the study and if they agree to participate, they proceed and complete the survey.  Consent is implied by the fact that the participant completed the survey, or participated in the focus group, or answered the interview questions.  To utilize this form, a Waiver of Documentation of Consent must be requested on the Informed Consent Process Form.

Related Documents

• Information Sheet Template

Related Research Topics

• Consent Templates
• Electronic Consent
• Electronic Signatures and Waivers of Documentation of Consent

Related Glossary Items

• Waiver of Documentation of Consent

Type of Document

• Research Topics
• Researcher Guidance
• All Documents & Resources
• Post-Approval Monitoring
• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
• OPRS/IRB SOPs

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 33, Issue 5
• Equitable and accessible informed healthcare consent process for people with intellectual disability: a systematic literature review
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8498-7329 Manjekah Dunn 1 , 2 ,
• Iva Strnadová 3 , 4 , 5 ,
• Jackie Leach Scully 4 ,
• Jennifer Hansen 3 ,
• Julie Loblinzk 3 , 5 ,
• Skie Sarfaraz 5 ,
• Chloe Molnar 1 ,
• Elizabeth Emma Palmer 1 , 2
• 1 Faculty of Medicine & Health , University of New South Wales , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
• 2 The Sydney Children's Hospitals Network , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
• 3 School of Education , University of New South Wales , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
• 4 Disability Innovation Institute , University of New South Wales , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
• 5 Self Advocacy Sydney , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
• Correspondence to Dr Manjekah Dunn, Paediatrics & Child Health, University of New South Wales Medicine & Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; manjekah.dunn{at}unsw.edu.au

Objective To identify factors acting as barriers or enablers to the process of healthcare consent for people with intellectual disability and to understand how to make this process equitable and accessible.

Data sources Databases: Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and CINAHL. Additional articles were obtained from an ancestral search and hand-searching three journals.

Eligibility criteria Peer-reviewed original research about the consent process for healthcare interventions, published after 1990, involving adult participants with intellectual disability.

Synthesis of results Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify factors affecting informed consent. The findings were reviewed by co-researchers with intellectual disability to ensure they reflected lived experiences, and an easy read summary was created.

Results Twenty-three studies were included (1999 to 2020), with a mix of qualitative (n=14), quantitative (n=6) and mixed-methods (n=3) studies. Participant numbers ranged from 9 to 604 people (median 21) and included people with intellectual disability, health professionals, carers and support people, and others working with people with intellectual disability. Six themes were identified: (1) health professionals’ attitudes and lack of education, (2) inadequate accessible health information, (3) involvement of support people, (4) systemic constraints, (5) person-centred informed consent and (6) effective communication between health professionals and patients. Themes were barriers (themes 1, 2 and 4), enablers (themes 5 and 6) or both (theme 3).

Conclusions Multiple reasons contribute to poor consent practices for people with intellectual disability in current health systems. Recommendations include addressing health professionals’ attitudes and lack of education in informed consent with clinician training, the co-production of accessible information resources and further inclusive research into informed consent for people with intellectual disability.

PROSPERO registration CRD42021290548.

• Decision making
• Healthcare quality improvement
• Patient-centred care
• Quality improvement
• Standards of care

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Additional data and materials such as data collection forms, data extraction and analysis templates and QualSyst assessment data can be obtained by contacting the corresponding author.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016113

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

What is already known on this topic

People with intellectual disability are frequently excluded from decision-making processes and not provided equal opportunity for informed consent, despite protections outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

People with intellectual disability have the capacity and desire to make informed medical decisions, which can improve their well-being, health satisfaction and health outcomes.

What this review study adds

Health professionals lack adequate training in valid informed consent and making reasonable adjustments for people with intellectual disability, and continue to perpetuate assumptions of incapacity.

Health information provided to people with intellectual disability is often inaccessible and insufficient for them to make informed decisions about healthcare.

The role of support people, systemic constraints, a person-centred approach and ineffective healthcare communication also affect informed consent.

How this review might affect research, practice or policy

Health professionals need additional training on how to provide a valid informed consent process for people with intellectual disability, specifically in using accessible health information, making reasonable adjustments (e.g., longer/multiple appointments, options of a support person attending or not, using plain English), involving the individual in discussions, and communicating effectively with them.

Inclusive research is needed to hear the voices and opinions of people with intellectual disability about healthcare decision-making and about informed consent practices in specific healthcare settings.

Introduction

Approximately 1% of the world’s population have intellectual disability. 1 Intellectual disability is medically defined as a group of neurodevelopmental conditions beginning in childhood, with below average cognitive functioning and adaptive behaviour, including limitations in conceptual, social and practical skills. 2 People with intellectual disability prefer an alternative strength-based definition, reflected in the comment by Robert Strike OAM (Order of Australia Medal): ‘We can learn if the way of teaching matches how the person learns’, 3 reinforcing the importance of providing information tailored to the needs of a person with intellectual disability. A diagnosis of intellectual disability is associated with significant disparities in health outcomes. 4–7 Person-centred decision-making and better communication have been shown to improve patient satisfaction, 8 9 the physician–patient relationship 10 and overall health outcomes 11 for the wider population. Ensuring people with intellectual disability experience informed decision-making and accessible healthcare can help address the ongoing health disparities and facilitate equal access to healthcare.

Bodily autonomy is an individual’s power and agency to make decisions about their own body. 12 Informed consent for healthcare enables a person to practice bodily autonomy and is protected, for example, by the National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards (Australia), 13 Mental Capacity Act (UK) 14 and the Joint Commission Standards (USA). 15 In this article, we define informed consent according to three requirements: (1) the person is provided with information they understand, (2) the decision is free of coercion and (3) the person must have capacity. 16 For informed consent to be valid, this process must be suited to the individual’s needs so that they can understand and communicate effectively. Capacity is the ability to give informed consent for a medical intervention, 17 18 and the Mental Capacity Act outlines that ‘a person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity’ and that incapacity can only be established if ‘all practicable steps’ to support capacity have been attempted without success. 14 These assumptions of capacity are also decision-specific, meaning an individual’s ability to consent can change depending on the situation, the choice itself and other factors. 17

Systemic issues with healthcare delivery systems have resulted in access barriers for people with intellectual disability, 19 despite the disability discrimination legislation in many countries who are signatories to the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 20 Patients with intellectual disability are not provided the reasonable adjustments that would enable them to give informed consent for medical procedures or interventions, 21 22 despite evidence that many people with intellectual disability have both the capacity and the desire to make their own healthcare decisions. 21 23

To support people with intellectual disability to make independent health decisions, an equitable and accessible informed consent process is needed. 24 However, current health systems have consistently failed to provide this. 21 25 To address this gap, we must first understand the factors that contribute to inequitable and inaccessible consent. To the best of our knowledge, the only current review of informed consent for people with intellectual disability is an integrative review by Goldsmith et al . 26 Many of the included articles focused on assessment of capacity 27–29 and research consent. 30–32 The review’s conclusion supported the functional approach to assess capacity, with minimal focus on how the informed consent processes can be improved. More recently, there has been a move towards ensuring that the consent process is accessible for all individuals, including elderly patients 33 and people with aphasia. 34 However, there remains a paucity of literature about the informed consent process for people with intellectual disability, with no systematic reviews summarising the factors influencing the healthcare consent process for people with intellectual disability.

To identify barriers to and enablers of the informed healthcare consent process for people with intellectual disability, and to understand how this can be made equitable and accessible.

A systematic literature review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) systematic literature review protocol. 35 The PRISMA 2020 checklist 36 and ENhancing Transparency in REporting the synthesis of Qualitative research (ENTREQ) reporting guidelines were also followed. 37 The full study protocol is included in online supplemental appendix 1 .

Supplemental material

No patients or members of the public were involved in this research for this manuscript.

Search strategy

A search strategy was developed to identify articles about intellectual disability, consent and healthcare interventions, described in online supplemental appendix 2 . Multiple databases were searched for articles published between January 1990 to January 2022 (Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and CINAHL). These databases include healthcare and psychology databases that best capture relevant literature on this topic, including medical, nursing, social sciences and bioethical literature. The search was limited to studies published from 1990 as understandings of consent have changed since then. 38 39 This yielded 4853 unique papers which were imported into Covidence, a specialised programme for conducting systematic reviews. 40

Study selection

Citation screening by abstract and titles was completed by two independent researchers (MD and EEP). Included articles had to:

Examine the informed consent process for a healthcare intervention for people with intellectual disability.

Have collected more than 50% of its data from relevant stakeholders, including adults with intellectual disability, families or carers of a person with intellectual disability, and professionals who engage with people with intellectual disability.

Report empirical data from primary research methodology.

Be published in a peer-reviewed journal after January 1990.

Be available in English.

Full text screening was completed by two independent researchers (MD and EEP). Articles were excluded if consent was only briefly discussed or if it focused on consent for research, capacity assessment, or participant knowledge or comprehension. Any conflicts were resolved through discussion with an independent third researcher (IS).

Additional studies were identified through an ancestral search and by hand-searching three major journals relevant to intellectual disability research. Journals were selected if they had published more than one included article for this review or in previous literature reviews conducted by the research team.

Quality assessment

Two independent researchers (MD and IS) assessed study quality with the QualSyst tool, 41 which can assess both qualitative and quantitative research papers. After evaluating the distribution of scores, a threshold value of 55% was used, as suggested by QualSyst 41 to exclude poor-quality studies but capture enough studies overall. Any conflicts between the quality assessment scores were resolved by a third researcher (EEP). For mixed-method studies, both qualitative and quantitative quality scores were calculated, and the higher value used.

Data collection

Two independent researchers (MD and JH) reviewed each study and extracted relevant details, including study size, participant demographics, year, country of publication, study design, data analysis and major outcomes reported. Researchers used standardised data collection forms designed, with input from senior researchers with expertise in qualitative research (IS and EEP), to extract data relevant to the review’s research aims. The form was piloted on one study, and a second iteration made based on feedback. These forms captured data on study design, methods, participants, any factors affecting the process of informed consent and study limitations. Data included descriptions and paragraphs outlining key findings, the healthcare context, verbatim participant quotes and any quantitative analyses or statistics. Missing or unclear data were noted.

Data analysis

A pilot literature search showed significant heterogeneity in methodology of studies, limiting the applicability of traditional quantitative analysis (ie, meta-analysis). Instead, inductive thematic analysis was chosen as an alternative methodology 42 43 that has been used in recent systematic reviews examining barriers and enablers of other health processes. 44 45 The six-phase approach described by Braun and Clarke was used. 46 47 A researcher (MD) independently coded the extracted data of each study line-by-line, with subsequent data grouped into pre-existing codes or new concepts when necessary. Codes were reviewed iteratively and grouped into categories, subthemes and themes framed around the research question. Another independent researcher (JH) collated and analysed the data on study demographics, methods and limitations. The themes were reviewed by two senior researchers (EEP and IS).

Qualitative methods of effect size calculations have been described in the literature, 48 49 which was captured in this review by the number of studies that identified each subtheme, with an assigned frequency rating to compare their relative significance. Subthemes were given a frequency rating of A, B, C or D if they were identified by >10, 7–9, 4–6 or <3 articles, respectively. The overall significance of each theme was estimated by the number of studies that mentioned it and the GRADE framework, a stepwise approach to quality assessment using a four-tier rating system. Each study was evaluated for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias. 50 51 Study sensitivity was assessed by counting the number of distinct subthemes included. 52 The quality of findings was designated high, moderate or low depending on the frequency ratings, the QualSyst score and the GRADE scores of studies supporting the finding. Finally, the relative contributions of each study were evaluated by the number of subthemes described, guided by previously reported methods for qualitative reviews. 52

Co-research

The findings were reviewed by two co-researchers with intellectual disability (JL and SS), with over 30 years combined experience as members and employees of a self-advocacy organisation. Guidance on the findings and an easy read summary was produced in line with best-practice inclusive research 53 54 over multiple discussions. Input from two health professional researchers (MD and EEP) provided data triangulation and sense-checking of findings.

Twenty-three articles were identified ( figure 1 ): 14 qualitative, 6 quantitative and 3 mixed-methods. Two papers included the same population of study participants: McCarthy 55 and McCarthy, 56 but had different research questions. Fovargue et al 57 was excluded due to a quality score of 35%. Common quality limitations were a lack of verification procedures to establish credibility and limited researcher reflexivity. No studies were excluded due to language requirements (as all were in English) or age restrictions (all studies had majority adult participants).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

PRISMA 2020 flowchart for the systematic review. 36

Studies were published from 1999 to 2020 and involved participant populations from the UK (n=18), USA (n=3), Sweden (n=1) and Ireland (n=1). Participant numbers ranged from 9 to 604 (median 21), and participants included people with intellectual disability (n=817), health professionals (n=272), carers and support people (n=48), and other professionals that work with people with intellectual disability (n=137, community service agency directors, social workers, administrative staff and care home staff). Ages of participants ranged from 8 to 84 years, though only Aman et al 58 included participants <18 years of age. This study was included as the article states very few children were included. Studies examined consent in different contexts, including contraception and sexual health (6/23 articles), 58–60 medications (5/23 articles), 58–62 emergency healthcare, 63 cervical screening, 64 community referrals, 58–61 65 mental health, 66 hydrotherapy, 64 blood collection 67 and broad decision-making consent without a specific context. 65 68–71 A detailed breakdown of each study is included in online supplemental appendix 3 .

Six major themes were identified from the studies, summarised in figure 2 . An overview of included studies showing study sensitivity, effect size, QualSyst and GRADE scores is given in online supplemental appendix 4 . Studies with higher QualSyst and GRADE scores contributed more to this review’s findings and tended to include more subthemes; specifically, Rogers et al , 66 Sowney and Barr, 63 Höglund and Larsson, 72 and McCarthy 55 and McCarthy. 56 Figure 3 gives the easy read version of theme 1, with the full easy read summary in online supplemental appendix 5 .

Summary of the identified six themes and subthemes.

Theme 1 of the easy read summary.

Theme 1—Health professionals’ attitudes and lack of education about informed consent

Health professionals’ attitudes and practices were frequently (18/21) identified as factors affecting the informed consent process, with substantial evidence supporting this theme. Studies noted the lack of training for health professionals in supporting informed consent for people with intellectual disability, their desire for further education, and stereotypes and discrimination perpetuated by health professionals.

Lack of health professional education on informed consent and disability discrimination legislation

Multiple studies reported inconsistent informed consent practices, for various reasons: some reported that health professionals ‘forgot’ to or ‘did not realise consent was necessary’, 63 73 but inconsistent consent practices were also attributed to healthcare providers’ unfamiliarity with consent guidelines and poor education on this topic. Carlson et al 73 reported that only 44% of general practitioners (GPs) were aware of consent guidelines, and there was the misconception that consent was unnecessary for people with intellectual disability. Similarly, studies of psychologists 66 and nurses 63 found that many were unfamiliar with their obligations to obtain consent, despite the existence of anti-discrimination legislation. People with intellectual disability describe feeling discriminated against by health professionals, reflected in comments such as ‘I can tell, my doctor just thinks I’m stupid – I'm nothing to him’. 74 Poor consent practices by health professionals were observed in Goldsmith et al , 67 while health professionals surveyed by McCarthy 56 were unaware of their responsibility to provide accessible health information to women with intellectual disability. Improving health professional education and training was suggested by multiple studies as a way to remove this barrier. 63 65–67 69 73

Lack of training on best practices for health professions caring for people with intellectual disability

A lack of training in caring for and communicating with people with intellectual disability was also described by midwives, 72 psychologists, 66 nurses, 63 pharmacists 61 and GPs. 56 72 75 Health professionals lacked knowledge about best practice approaches to providing equitable healthcare consent processes through reasonable adjustments such as accessible health information, 56 60 66 longer appointments times, 60 72 simple English 62 67 and flexible approaches to patient needs. 63 72

Health professionals’ stereotyping and assumptions of incapacity

Underlying stereotypes contributed to some health professionals’ (including nurses, 63 GPs 56 and physiotherapists 64 ) belief that people with intellectual disability lack capacity and therefore, do not require opportunities for informed consent. 56 64 In a survey of professionals referring people with intellectual disability to a disability service, the second most common reason for not obtaining consent was ‘patient unable to understand’. 73

Proxy consent as an inappropriate alternative

People with intellectual disability are rarely the final decision-maker in their medical choices, with many health providers seeking proxy consent from carers, support workers and family members, despite its legal invalidity. In McCarthy’s study (2010), 18/23 women with intellectual disability said the decision to start contraception was made by someone else. Many GPs appeared unaware that proxy consent is invalid in the UK. 56 Similar reports came from people with intellectual disability, 55 56 60 64 69 76 health professionals (nurses, doctors, allied health, psychologists), 56 63 64 66 77 support people 64 77 and non-medical professionals, 65 73 and capacity was rarely documented. 56 62 77

Exclusion of people with intellectual disability from decision-making discussions

Studies described instances where health professionals made decisions for their patients with intellectual disability or coerced patients into a choice. 55 72 74 76 77 In Ledger et al 77 , only 62% of women with intellectual disability were involved in the discussion about contraception, and only 38% made the final decision, and others stated in Wiseman and Ferrie 74 : ‘I was not given the opportunity to explore the different options. I was told what one I should take’. Three papers outlined instances where the choices of people with intellectual disability were ignored despite possessing capacity 65 66 69 and when a procedure continued despite them withdrawing consent. 69

Theme 2—Inadequate accessible health information

Lack of accessible health information.

The lack of accessible health information was the most frequently identified subtheme (16/23 studies). Some studies reported that health professionals provided information to carers instead, 60 avoided providing easy read information due to concerns about ‘offending’ patients 75 or only provided verbal information. 56 67 Informed consent was supported when health professionals recognised the importance of providing medical information 64 and when it was provided in an accessible format. 60 Alternative approaches to health information were explored, including virtual reality 68 and in-person education sessions, 59 with varying results. Overall, the need to provide information in different formats tailored to an individual’s communication needs, rather than a ‘one size fits all’ approach, was emphasised by both people with intellectual disability 60 and health professionals. 66

Insufficient information provided

Studies described situations where insufficient information was provided to people with intellectual disability to make informed decisions. For example, some people felt the information from their GP was often too basic to be helpful (Fish et al 60 ) and wanted additional information on consent forms (Rose et al 78 ).

Theme 3—The involvement of support people

Support people (including carers, family members and group home staff) were identified in 11 articles as both enablers of and barriers to informed consent. The antagonistic nature of these findings and lower frequency of subthemes are reflected in the lower quality assessments of evidence.

Support people facilitated communication with health professionals

Some studies reported carers bridging communication barriers with health to support informed consent. 63 64 McCarthy 56 found 21/23 of women with intellectual disability preferred to see doctors with a support person due to perceived benefits: ‘Sometimes I don’t understand it, so they have to explain it to my carer, so they can explain it to me easier’. Most GPs in this study (93%) also agreed that support people aided communication.

Support people helped people with intellectual disability make decisions

By advocating for people with intellectual disability, carers encouraged decision-making, 64 74 provided health information, 74 77 emotional support 76 and assisted with reading or remembering health information. 55 58 76 Some people with intellectual disability explicitly appreciated their support person’s involvement, 60 such as in McCarthy’s 55 study where 18/23 participants felt supported and safer when a support person was involved.

Support people impeded individual autonomy

The study by Wiseman and Ferrie 74 found that while younger participants with intellectual disability felt family members empowered their decision-making, older women felt family members impaired their ability to give informed consent. This was reflected in interviews with carers who questioned the capacity of the person with intellectual disability they supported and stated they would guide them to pick the ‘best choice’ or even over-ride their choices. 64 Studies of psychologists and community service directors described instances where the decision of family or carers was prioritised over the wishes of the person with intellectual disability. 65 66 Some women with intellectual disability in McCarthy’s studies (2010, 2009) 55 56 appeared to have been coerced into using contraception by parental pressures or fear of losing group home support.

Theme 4—Systemic constraints within healthcare systems

Time restraints affect informed consent and accessible healthcare.

Resource limitations create time constraints that impair the consent process and have been identified as a barrier by psychologists, 66 GPs, 56 hospital nurses 63 and community disability workers. 73 Rogers et al 66 highlighted that a personalised approach that could improve informed decision-making is restricted by inflexible medical models. Only two studies described flexible patient-centred approaches to consent. 60 72 A survey of primary care practices in 2007 reported that most did not modify their cervical screening information for patients with intellectual disability because it was not practical. 75

Inflexible models of consent

Both people with intellectual disability 76 and health professionals 66 recognised that consent is traditionally obtained through one-off interactions prior to an intervention. Yet, for people with intellectual disability, consent should ideally be an ongoing process that begins before an appointment and continues between subsequent ones. Other studies have tended to describe one-off interactions where decision-making was not revisited at subsequent appointments. 56 60 72 76

Lack of systemic supports

In one survey, self-advocates highlighted a lack of information on medication for people with intellectual disability and suggested a telephone helpline and a centralised source of information to support consent. 60 Health professionals also want greater systemic support, such as a health professional specialised in intellectual disability care to support other staff, 72 or a pharmacist specifically to help patients with intellectual disability. 61 Studies highlighted a lack of guidelines about healthcare needs of people with intellectual disabilities such as contraceptive counselling 72 or primary care. 75

Theme 5—Person-centred informed consent

Ten studies identified factors related to a person-centred approach to informed consent, grouped below into three subthemes. Health professionals should tailor their practice when obtaining informed consent from people with intellectual disability by considering how these subthemes relate to the individual. Each subtheme was described five times in the literature with a relative frequency rating of ‘C’, contributing to overall lower quality scores.

Previous experience with decision-making

Arscott et al 71 found that the ability of people with intellectual disability to consent changed with their verbal and memory skills and in different clinical vignettes, supporting the view of ‘functional’ capacity specific to the context of the medical decision. Although previous experiences with decision-making did not influence informed consent in this paper, other studies suggest that people with intellectual disability accustomed to independent decision-making were more able to make informed medical decisions, 66 70 and those who live independently were more likely to make independent healthcare decisions. 56 Health professionals should be aware that their patients with intellectual disability will have variable experience with decision-making and provide individualised support to meet their needs.

Variable awareness about healthcare rights

Consent processes should be tailored to the health literacy of patients, including emphasising available choices and the option to refuse treatment. In some studies, medical decisions were not presented to people with intellectual disability as a choice, 64 and people with intellectual disability were not informed of their legal right to accessible health information. 56

Power differences and acquiescence

Acquiescence by people with intellectual disability due to common and repeated experiences of trauma—that is, their tendency to agree with suggestions made by carers and health professionals, often to avoid upsetting others—was identified as an ongoing barrier. In McCarthy’s (2009) interviews with women with intellectual disability, some participants implicitly rejected the idea that they might make their own healthcare decisions: ‘They’re the carers, they have responsibility for me’. Others appeared to have made decisions to appease their carers: ‘I have the jab (contraceptive injection) so I can’t be blamed for getting pregnant’. 55 Two studies highlighted that health professionals need to be mindful of power imbalances when discussing consent with people with intellectual disability to ensure the choices are truly autonomous. 61 66

Theme 6—Effective communication between health professionals and patients

Implementation of reasonable adjustments for verbal and written information.

Simple language was always preferred by people with intellectual disability. 60 67 Other communication aids used in decision-making included repetition, short sentences, models, pictures and easy read brochures. 72 Another reasonable adjustment is providing the opportunity to ask questions, which women with intellectual disability in McCarthy’s (2009) study reported did not occur. 55

Tailored communication methods including non-verbal communication

Midwives noted that continuity of care allows them to develop rapport and understand the communication preferences of people with intellectual disability. 72 This is not always possible; for emergency nurses, the lack of background information about patients with intellectual disability made it challenging to understand their communication preferences. 63 The use of non-verbal communication, such as body language, was noted as underutilised 62 66 and people with intellectual disability supported the use of hearing loops, braille and sign language. 60

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review investigating the barriers and enablers of the informed consent process for healthcare procedures for people with intellectual disability. The integrative review by Goldsmith et al 26 examined capacity assessment and shares only three articles with this systematic review. 69 71 73 Since the 2000s, there has been a paradigm shift in which capacity is no longer considered a fixed ability that only some individuals possess 38 39 but instead as ‘functional’: a flexible ability that changes over time and in different contexts, 79 reflected in Goldsmith’s review. An individual’s capacity can be supported through various measures, including how information is communicated and how the decision-making process is approached. 18 80 By recognising the barriers and enablers identified in this review, physicians can help ensure the consent process for their patients with intellectual disability is both valid and truly informed. This review has highlighted the problems of inaccessible health information, insufficient clinical education on how to make reasonable adjustments and lack of person-centred trauma-informed care.

Recommendations

Health professionals require training in the informed consent process for people with intellectual disability, particularly in effective and respectful communication, reasonable adjustments and trauma-informed care. Reasonable adjustments include offering longer or multiple appointments, using accessible resources (such as easy read information or shared decision-making tools) and allowing patient choices (such as to record a consultation or involve a support person). Co-researchers reported that many people with intellectual disability prefer to go without a support person because they find it difficult to challenge their decisions and feel ignored if the health professional only talks to the support person. People with intellectual disability also feel they cannot seek second opinions before making medical decisions or feel pressured to provide consent, raising the possibility of coercion. These experiences contribute to healthcare trauma. Co-researchers raised the importance of building rapport with the person with intellectual disability and of making reasonable adjustments, such as actively advocating for the person’s autonomy, clearly stating all options including the choice to refuse treatment, providing opportunities to contribute to discussions and multiple appointments to ask questions and understand information. They felt that without these efforts to support consent, health professionals can reinforce traumatic healthcare experiences for people with intellectual disability. Co-researchers noted instances where choices were made by doctors without discussion and where they were only given a choice after requesting one and expressed concern that these barriers are greater for those with higher support needs.

Co-researchers showed how these experiences contributed to mistrust of health professionals and poorer health outcomes. In one situation, a co-researcher was not informed of a medication’s withdrawal effects, resulting in significant side-effects when it was ceased. Many people with intellectual disability describe a poor relationship with their health professionals, finding it difficult to trust health information provided due to previous traumatic experiences of disrespect, coercion, lack of choice and inadequate support. Many feel they cannot speak up due to the power imbalance and fear of retaliation. Poor consent practices and lack of reasonable adjustments directly harm therapeutic alliances by reducing trust, contribute to healthcare trauma and lead to poorer health outcomes for people with intellectual disability.

Additional education and training for health professionals is urgently needed in the areas of informed consent, reasonable adjustments and effective communication with people with intellectual disability. The experiences of health professionals within the research team confirmed that there is limited training in providing high-quality healthcare for people with intellectual disability, including reasonable adjustments and accessible health information. Co-researchers also suggested that education should be provided to carers and support people to help them better advocate for people with intellectual disability.

Health information should be provided in a multimodal format, including written easy read information. Many countries have regulation protecting the right to accessible health information and communication support to make an informed choice, such as UK’s Accessible Information Standard, 81 and Australia’s Charter of Health Care Rights, 24 yet these are rarely observed. Steps to facilitate this include routinely asking patients about information requirements, system alerts for an individual’s needs or routinely providing reasonable adjustments. 82 Co-researchers agreed that there is a lack of accessible health information, particularly about medications, and that diagrams and illustrations are underutilised. There is a critical need for more inclusive and accessible resources to help health professionals support informed consent in a safe and high-quality health system. These resources should be created through methods of inclusive research, such as co-production, actively involving people with intellectual disability in the planning, creation, and feedback process. 53

Strengths and limitations

This systematic review involved two co-researchers with intellectual disability in sense-checking findings and co-creating the easy read summary. Two co-authors who are health professionals provided additional sense-checking of findings from a different stakeholder perspective. In future research, this could be extended by involving people with intellectual disability in the design and planning of the study as per recommendations for best-practice inclusive research. 53 83

The current literature is limited by low use of inclusive research practices in research involving people with intellectual disability, increasing vulnerability to external biases (eg, inaccessible questionnaires, involvement of carers in data collection, overcompliance or acquiescence and absence of researcher reflexivity). Advisory groups or co-research with people with intellectual disability were only used in five studies. 58 60 68 74 76 Other limitations include unclear selection criteria, low sample sizes, missing data, using gatekeepers in patient selection and predominance of UK-based studies—increasing the risk of bias and reducing transferability. Nine studies (out of 15 involving people with intellectual disability) explicitly excluded those with severe or profound intellectual disability, reflecting a selection bias; only one study specifically focused on people with intellectual disability with higher support needs. Studies were limited to a few healthcare contexts, with a focus on consent about sexual health, contraception and medications.

The heterogeneity and qualitative nature of studies made it challenging to apply traditional meta-analysis. However, to promote consistency in qualitative research, the PRISMA and ENTREQ guidelines were followed. 36 37 Although no meta-analyses occurred, the duplication of study populations in McCarthy 2009 and 2010 likely contributed to increased significance of findings reported in both studies. Most included studies (13/23) were published over 10 years ago, reducing the current relevance of this review’s findings. Nonetheless, the major findings reflect underlying systemic issues within the health system, which are unlikely to have been resolved since the articles were published, as the just-released final report of the Australian Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability highlights. 84 There is an urgent need for more inclusive studies to explore the recommendations and preferences of people with intellectual disability about healthcare choices.

Informed consent processes for people with intellectual disability should include accessible information and reasonable adjustments, be tailored to individuals’ needs and comply with consent and disability legislation. Resources, guidelines and healthcare education are needed and should cover how to involve carers and support people, address systemic healthcare problems, promote a person-centred approach and ensure effective communication. These resources and future research must use principles of inclusive co-production—involving people with intellectual disability at all stages. Additionally, research is needed on people with higher support needs and in specific contexts where informed consent is vital but under-researched, such as cancer screening, palliative care, prenatal and newborn screening, surgical procedures, genetic medicine and advanced therapeutics such as gene-based therapies.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

• Maulik PK ,
• Mascarenhas MN ,
• Mathers CD , et al
• World Health Organisation
• Council for Intellectual Disability
• Emerson E ,
• Shogren KA ,
• Wehmeyer ML ,
• Reese RM , et al
• Cordasco KM
• Hallock JL ,
• Jordens CFC ,
• McGrath C , et al
• Brenner LH ,
• Brenner AT ,
• United Nations Population Fund
• Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care
• The Joint Commission
• Beauchamp TL ,
• Childress JF
• New South Wales Attorney General
• United Nations General Assembly
• Strnadová I ,
• Loblinzk J ,
• Scully JL , et al
• MacPhail C ,
• McKay K , et al
• Keywood K ,
• Fovargue S ,
• Goldsmith L ,
• Skirton H ,
• Cash J , et al
• Morris CD ,
• Niederbuhl JM ,
• Arscott K ,
• Fisher CB ,
• Davidson PW , et al
• Giampieri M
• Shamseer L ,
• Clarke M , et al
• McKenzie JE ,
• Bossuyt PM , et al
• Flemming K ,
• McInnes E , et al
• Appelbaum PS
• ↵ Covidence systematic review software . Melbourne, Australia ,
• Proudfoot K
• Papadopoulos I ,
• Koulouglioti C ,
• Lazzarino R , et al
• Onwuegbuzie AJ
• BMJ Best Practice
• Guyatt GH ,
• Vist GE , et al
• Garcia-Lee B
• Brimblecombe J , et al
• Benson BA ,
• Farmer CA , et al
• Ferguson L ,
• Graham YNH ,
• Gerrard D ,
• Laight S , et al
• Huneke NTM ,
• Halder N , et al
• Ferguson M ,
• Jarrett D ,
• McGuire BE , et al
• Woodward V ,
• Jackson L , et al
• Conboy-Hill S ,
• Leafman J ,
• Nehrenz GM , et al
• Höglund B ,
• Carlson T ,
• English S , et al
• Wiseman P ,
• Walmsley J ,
• Tilley E , et al
• Khatkar HS , et al
• Holland AJ , et al
• Beauchamp TL
• England National Health Service
• National Health Service England
• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability

Supplementary materials

Supplementary data.

This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

• Data supplement 1
• Data supplement 2
• Data supplement 3
• Data supplement 4
• Data supplement 5

Contributors MD, EEP and IS conceived the idea for the systematic review. MD drafted the search strategy which was refined by EEP and IS. MD and EEP completed article screening. MD and IS completed quality assessments of included articles. MD and JH completed data extraction. MD drafted the original manuscript. JL and SS were co-researchers who sense-checked findings and were consulted to formulate dissemination plans. JL and SS co-produced the easy read summary with MD, CM, JH, EEP and IS. MD, JLS, EEP and IS reviewed manuscript wording. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript and approved it for publication. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted. MD is the guarantor responsible for the overall content of this manuscript.

Funding This systematic literature review was funded by the National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Targeted Call for Research (TCR) into Improving health of people with intellectual disability. Research grant title "GeneEQUAL: equitable and accessible genomic healthcare for people with intellectual disability". NHMRC application ID: 2022/GNT2015753.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Linked Articles

• Editorial It is up to healthcare professionals to talk to us in a way that we can understand: informed consent processes in people with an intellectual disability Jonathon Ding Richard Keagan-Bull Irene Tuffrey-Wijne BMJ Quality & Safety 2024; 33 277-279 Published Online First: 30 Jan 2024. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016830

Read the full text or download the PDF:

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Research Initiatives
• Meet Our Researchers
• Meet Our Program Officers
• RESEARCH LENSES
• Health Equity
• Social Determinants of Health
• Population and Community Health
• Prevention and Health Promotion
• Systems and Models of Care
• Funding Opportunities
• Small Business Funding
• Grant Applicant Resources
• Training Grants
• Featured Research
• Strategic Plan
• Budget and Legislation
• Connect With Us
• Jobs at NINR

NINR Invites Letters of Interest for Social Determinants of Health Summer Research Institute

NINR invites prospective participants to submit letters of interest for our first Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) Summer Research Institute, a new event designed to provide early and mid-career investigators the opportunity to learn more about and apply the principles of high-quality SDOH research. The program is intended for individuals who have a strong foundational knowledge of health equity and SDOH and are actively pursuing ways to include a greater SDOH emphasis in their work.

The program will focus exclusively on SDOH research. Topics will include application of conceptual models, design considerations, methods, and measurement. The optional third day will include a mock grant review by NIH staff and opportunities to meet with NINR program staff. Participants will also meet NIH/NINR staff and other researchers engaged in SDOH work.

When: 

• Monday, July 29 - Tuesday, July 30; Optional half day on Wednesday, July 31

Where: 

• NIH Campus Bethesda, MD

Cost: 

• There is no cost to participate in the SDOH Summer Research Institute. Selected participants will receive a reimbursement up to $1000 to help cover travel expenses.

Eligibility

Interested individuals must fulfill all of the criteria below:

• Be a nurse who holds a terminal research degree such as a Ph.D., Sc.D., Dr.P.H., Dr.N.P., or equivalent doctoral research degree from an accredited domestic or foreign institution.
• Be an early-stage investigator (ESI) who has completed their terminal degree or post-graduate clinical training within the past 10 years or a new investigator who has not previously competed successfully for a substantial research grant from NIH.
• 2nd or 3rd year postdoctoral fellowship, preparing to transition to independent career stage;
• Assistant professor;
• Associate professor; or
• Comparable research position
• Be planning to submit a K, R21, or R01 grant to NIH within the next 12 months.  

Selection Criteria

Participants will be selected based on several factors including the individual’s research accomplishments, research interests, and potential for implementing the knowledge gained during the workshop into their research program, specifically the ability to demonstrate how they plan to submit an NIH grant application within one year of attending the workshop.

Process to Attend

Interested individuals should prepare a packet of materials (a maximum 1000 words total) that includes:

• A letter of interest outlining career goals, reasons for participating in the program, and plans for obtaining NIH funding; 
• A statement of professional and research experience, educational and career achievements, and a record of peer-reviewed publications (first or co-authored); and
• A brief description of a project that can serve as the basis for an NIH grant application that addresses scientific premise, specific aims, and proposed methodology.

Submit all requested materials to [email protected] by May 28, 2024.