Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Informed consent is one of the foundational ethical and legal requirements of research with human subjects. The Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration, the Belmont Report, the Common Rule and many other laws and codes require that research subjects (or the subject’s legal representative) make a voluntary, informed choice to participate in research.1 2 3 4 5 Informed consent is based on the moral principle of respect for autonomy, which holds that rational individuals have a right to make decisions and take actions that reflect their values and preferences.6 Whereas most guidelines and codes also require that informed consent be properly documented, informed consent is much more than signing a piece of paper: It is a continuous process of communication between the investigator and the research subject.7 Because the body of knowledge impacting a study frequently changes, subjects should receive information from investigators after they have enrolled in a study, such as significant new findings that may affect their decision to participate in research or clinically useful tests results.8 9 10 In large studies, some investigators use newsletters to update subjects on the progress of research and other developments.11
Most of the ongoing communications between investigators and subjects (or their representatives) involve little more than information sharing, without revisiting the decision to participate in research or signing any additional documents. Sometimes, however, it may be necessary for subjects to reaffirm their decision to participate, to re-consent, or to sign or re-sign a document.8 Re-consent can be defined as an action in which a subject (or representative) makes the decision to participate in research once again. Re-consent is different from reaffirming a commitment to participate in a study, because in re-consent one actually reconsiders the information necessary to make decision, whereas in reaffirmation one simply expresses …
Funding This research was sponsored by the intramural programme of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH). It does not represent the views of the NIEHS or NIH.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Non-completion and informed consent
- Clinical Research From Proposal to Implementation
- Developing capacity to protect human research subjects in a post-conflict, resource-constrained setting: procedures and prospects
- A qualitative study of institutional review board members’ experience reviewing research proposals using emergency exception from informed consent
- Does Waiver of Written Informed Consent from the Institutional Review Board Affect Response Rate in a Low-Risk Research Study?
- Health service research: the square peg in human subjects protection regulations
- Ethical issues in Alzheimer’s disease research involving human subjects
- Ethics, human rights and HIV vaccine trials in low-income settings
- A rationale and framework for seeking remote electronic or phone consent approval in endovascular stroke trials – special relevance in the COVID-19 environment and beyond
- Work efficiency improvement of >90% after implementation of an annual inpatient blood products administration consent form