DOCSLIB.ORG

A Pilot Assessment of Parental Practices and Attitudes Regarding Risk Disclosure and Clinical Research Involving Children in Huntington Disease Families Leon S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Pilot Assessment of Parental Practices and Attitudes Regarding Risk Disclosure and Clinical Research Involving Children in Huntington Disease Families Leon S November 2008 ⅐ Vol. 10 ⅐ No. 11 article A pilot assessment of parental practices and attitudes regarding risk disclosure and clinical research involving children in Huntington disease families Leon S. Dure, MD1, Kimberly Quaid, PhD2, and T. Mark Beasley, PhD3 Purpose: To characterize parental practices of informing children of risk for Huntington disease (HD), and to understand the attitudes of parents concerning childhood participation in HD research. Methods: An anonymous Internet survey was accessed by individuals of HD families. The survey probed for data regarding individual risk for HD, as well as when or if children had been informed of the disease. Respondents expressed their attitudes concerning childhood participation in HD clinical research. Results: Two hundred forty-nine individuals responded (ϳ80% female), and 84% had never participated in an HD clinical trial. Seventy-five percent of respondents were parents; nearly two thirds of them had provided some information about HD to their children. There was overwhelming support for affected, at-risk, and unaffected adults in terms of HD research participation, but there was a statistically significant disparity by gene status, with gene negative and symptomatic gene positive adults being more inclined to participate than at-risk or asymptomatic/gene positive adults. More than 50% of respon- dents supported childhood participation, but typically in late adolescence (15–18 years). Gene negative and symptomatic adults were statistically more likely to agree with childhood inclusion than at-risk or asymptomatic/ gene positive adults. Conclusion: These results serve as pilot data for further investigations to address childhood participation in HD research. In addition, these findings will inform ongoing studies as to appropriate practices to undertake to include minors. Genet Med 2008:10(11):811–819. Key Words: Huntington disease, clinical research, childhood participation, genetic epidemiology, informed consent, assent Huntington disease (HD) is an autosomal dominant disor- The Huntington Study Group (HSG) is an international or- der characterized by the appearance in midlife of chorea, inco- ganization of clinical investigators dedicated to developing ordination, and a gait abnormality.1 It is caused by an ex- clinical trial initiatives with the stated goal of discovering an panded trinucleotide repeat of cytosine, adenine, and guanine effective treatment for the disease. A number of trials have been carried out, yet no clearly effective treatment modalities (CAGn) in the Huntington gene on the short arm of chromo- some 4, and affects approximately 4–10 people per 100,000 of have been identified.6,7 A recent initiative undertaken by the the general population. Because of its somewhat late appear- HSG is the Cooperative Huntington Observational Research ance, individuals who carry the gene for Huntington disease Trial (COHORT), involving sites in the United States, Canada, often have already begun their families before the onset of and Australia. The study objective is “to collect prospective symptoms. The disorder is progressive, with no effective cure. data from individuals who are part of an HD family, in order to Recent work suggests that there may be a prodrome of behav- relate phenotypes between individuals and families with each other and genetic factors in order to learn more about HD, ioral and psychiatric pathologies that antedates the motor syn- develop potential treatments for HD, and to plan for future drome, and this remains an ongoing area of investigation.2–5 research studies of experimental drugs aimed at slowing or postponing the onset and progression of HD,” (I Shoulson et al., personal communication). Inclusion criteria are directed at 1 From the Departments of Pediatrics and Neurology, The University of Alabama at Birming- individuals who have clinically diagnosed Huntington disease, ham School of Medicine, Alabama; 2Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indiana; 3Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, or are at risk for the disorder. First-degree relatives including The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Alabama. parents, siblings, and children are eligible for recruitment. In Leon S. Dure, MD, 1600 7th Avenue South, 314 CH, Birmingham, AL 35233. E-mail: addition, family members with no risk of Huntington disease [email protected]. are encouraged to participate, in an attempt to develop a co- Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest. hort of unaffected individuals. Submitted for publication June 7, 2008. As part of the study, individuals will be seen on a regular Accepted for publication August 14, 2008. basis, and at each visit undergo a neurologic examination, as DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31818adb01 well as an interview regarding family and medical history. Each Genetics IN Medicine 811 Dure et al. participant will provide a blood specimen, an aliquot of which the activities in a particular study may be received by potential will be analyzed for CAG repeat length, and the remaining participants. In a study of parental attitudes regarding child- stored in a central facility, a biobank, which will serve as a hood participation in a genetic study of hearing loss, Gillam et repository for basic science research. To date, over 1000 indi- al.14 were able to illustrate particular issues relating to genetic viduals have been enrolled. literacy and competence of parents, as well as to identify atti- During the planning stages for this study up to the present tudes affecting consent. While serving to provide some insight time, there have been a number of discussions revolving into how a particular clinical trial may need to be structured for around the enrollment of minor children. Currently, only the inclusion of children, we have adopted a modification of symptomatic children have been enrolled, but there is a scien- this type of effort to access parental attitudes regarding child- tific basis to encourage the participation of unaffected and at- hood participation in HD clinical research. Using an anony- risk minors. This includes the fact that Huntington disease is in mous Internet survey structured in such a way as to obtain all likelihood a disorder with a definable phenotype that pre- basic demographic and historical information, we have de- dates the appearance of motor symptomatology.2,4,5,8 In addi- rived pilot data regarding parental practices of informing their tion, it is as yet unclear as to why individuals with identical children of the presence of HD in the family. Our results sug- mutations may have quite variable ages of onset. These varia- gest a variety of mechanisms with which COHORT may be tions are felt to be due to either other genetic or environmental adapted to ethically enroll minors, and to be sensitive to paren- factors. Because it is reasonable to suppose that interventional tal attitudes regarding juvenile inclusion. In addition, this pilot trials would have the most impact earlier in the course of the has also prompted a number of other investigations which will disease, thorough and early characterization of individuals is be necessary to fully capture juvenile participation in HD clin- warranted. Thus, the inclusion of minor children in COHORT ical research. Indeed, this mechanism could serve as a template may not only help to illuminate early signs of HD, but also for other genetic observational studies. assist in understanding what at some point may be a distinct study population. Despite the intent to include children, there have been con- METHODS cerns raised regarding the processes of enrollment, particularly the issue of consent. Although parents may be considered as a The Internet survey was created on Survey Monkey (www. proxy for a child’s participation in clinical research, there is a surveymonkey.com), and was reviewed and approved by the consensus that assent of a child should be obtained if that child Institutional Review Board of the University of Alabama at is to participate in clinical research,9–11 and US federal regula- Birmingham. The survey was linked to two Web sites, that of tions require such assent.12 Although the provision for child- the Huntington Disease Society of America (HDSA) and the hood assent is currently in widespread use in a variety of clin- HSG. The link was active from May 2007 to October 2007 (150 ical trial initiatives, the application is somewhat problematic days). No respondents were included in the data set after that for Huntington disease. One reason for this relates to the fact time, when the links were removed. that before the recruitment of a child into an HD study such as Consent for participation was implied by completion of the COHORT, the child must know why he/she is eligible for in- survey. Other than gender, age, and HD-related information, clusion. Currently, little is known how HD families process no personal information was obtained. There were 251 respon- information regarding risk, making it difficult to assess a likely dents to the survey. Periodic review of completed surveys was age at which a child would be capable of assent. In addition, performed by one of the authors (LSD) to gauge activity and there are concerns regarding the disposition of biobank mate- response totals. Upon completion of data collection, the data- rial, specifically relating to confidentiality and the determina- set was downloaded from the survey site in a spreadsheet for- tion of the presence or absence of the HD mutation.13 Parental mat for review and analysis. attitudes toward participation are not currently known, nor is The survey was designed in multiple parts. There was no there a good understanding of when children in HD families attempt to force completion of any particular question in the learn of their risk for disease. Finally, the impact of participa- survey. However, upon completion of certain questions, the tion by children remains an open question. Clearly, these issues survey would direct the respondent to a particular set of ques- will need to be resolved to satisfy both regulatory and social tions (see Fig.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Summary of Human Subjects Protection Issues Related to Large Sample Surveys
    Summary of Human Subjects Protection Issues Related to Large Sample Surveys U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics Joan E. Sieber June 2001, NCJ 187692 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs John Ashcroft Attorney General Bureau of Justice Statistics Lawrence A. Greenfeld Acting Director Report of work performed under a BJS purchase order to Joan E. Sieber, Department of Psychology, California State University at Hayward, Hayward, California 94542, (510) 538-5424, e-mail [email protected]. The author acknowledges the assistance of Caroline Wolf Harlow, BJS Statistician and project monitor. Ellen Goldberg edited the document. Contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the Department of Justice. This report and others from the Bureau of Justice Statistics are available through the Internet — http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2 Limitations of the Common Rule with respect to survey research 2 2. Risks and benefits of participation in sample surveys 5 Standard risk issues, researcher responses, and IRB requirements 5 Long-term consequences 6 Background issues 6 3. Procedures to protect privacy and maintain confidentiality 9 Standard issues and problems 9 Confidentiality assurances and their consequences 21 Emerging issues of privacy and confidentiality 22 4. Other procedures for minimizing risks and promoting benefits 23 Identifying and minimizing risks 23 Identifying and maximizing possible benefits 26 5. Procedures for responding to requests for help or assistance 28 Standard procedures 28 Background considerations 28 A specific recommendation: An experiment within the survey 32 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Technologies for Supporting the Informed Consent of Children and Young People in Research: the Potential for Transforming Current Research Ethics Practice
    This is a peer reviewed paper which should be cited as: Parsons, S. & Abbott, C. (2013) Digital technologies for supporting the informed consent of children and young people in research: the potential for transforming current research ethics practice. EPSRC Observatory for Responsible Innovation in ICT: http://torrii.responsible-innovation.org.uk/resource- detail/1444 Digital technologies for supporting the informed consent of children and young people in research: the potential for transforming current research ethics practice Sarah Parsons (University of Southampton) & Chris Abbott (King’s College London) Abstract Much research at the intersection of technology and ethics focuses on the impact of technological developments and innovation on wider society. This discussion considers the intersection of ethics and technology from the opposite direction; that is, how technology itself can support the ethical participation of people – particularly children and young people – in research. Our central argument is that the use of digital technologies (laptops, PCs, tablet devices, smartphones) offers the potential to support the presentation of information about research topics and methodologies, and children’s decision-making about their own participation, more effectively than by traditional, often paper-based, methods. Informed consent with children and young people Informed consent in research is one of the fundamental principles of good ethical practice for researchers across all disciplines. The ESRC’s Framework for Research Ethics (FRE) (2010; p.28) defines informed consent for research participation as: …giving sufficient information about the research and ensuring that there is no explicit or implicit coercion…so that prospective participants can make an informed and free decision on their possible involvement.
    [Show full text]
  • Informed Consent Vs Assent
    Informed Consent Vs Assent Germinable and inextricable Dallas often metricize some homespuns cattishly or motley diffusedly. andTerminal prescription Salvatore Drake always halloing blazon so hisfree-hand butadiene that if Ulrich Sonny manducates is unurged orhis caracoled satyrid. imprimis. Percental If informed assent Informed Consent and Assent in Pediatric Oncology Trials. So that prospective participant may provide consent document should be waived by most appropriate meaning is not others are evaluated. ADHD Symptoms in Children? The concepts of trim and assent Consent refer a legally defined decision given by several who is competent who since been adequately informed and has. Any additional protections to informed consent vs assent form will be presented during the subjects will not be made by fda, and at which a senator without free. How participants may switch from diverse study; andx. And the correspond to endanger it gift be explained in tangible vs conceptual terms a. Agency or informed consent and mailing the irb may assent vs legal medical providers some or permission Coordinator and health colleges and depth what all the. What does idiosyncrasy mean? When the research subjects is rooted in developing simple written vs assent and assent should be infinitely more time? In the child to read and maturity of the information may be made to avoid confusion with informed of data sought by parliament. Informed assent Wikipedia. The child is given the opportunity to ask questions and the Investigator takes the opportunity to explain anything that is not clear. Child or adolescent assent to participate to research. Written consent vs male vs assent procedure.
    [Show full text]
  • Informed Consent, Permission, Assent
    POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SECTION: NUMBER: Human Research Protection Program 117 CHAPTER: ISSUED: LATEST REVIEW/REVISION: Institutional Review Board 2/2000 11/2018 POLICY: PAGE 1 OF 18 Informed Consent (Including Permission/Assent) PURPOSE This policy describes the requirements for valid informed consent processes and additional elements of consent disclosure, and the criteria for waiver of or alteration to these requirements. 1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Principal Investigators shall ensure that all investigators and study personnel comply with informed consent requirements. 1.1. Obtaining Informed Consent 1.1.1. Only IRB-certified investigators/study personnel (hereafter referred to as authorized personnel) who are listed on the informed consent form shall obtain informed consent from the subject or the subject’s parent(s), guardian(s), or other authorized representative (see section 2.7 of this document) in accordance with 45 CFR 46.116, 21 CFR 50.20, and these policies. This responsibility shall not be delegated to personnel who are not IRB-certified or who are not listed on the informed consent document. Authorized personnel shall ensure that no human subject will be involved in any research project prior to obtaining informed consent from the subject or his/her authorized representative. Informed consent shall be obtained prior to initiating any clinical procedures performed solely for the purpose of determining eligibility for the research project, such as laboratory tests or withdrawal (washout) from medications. The Creighton University IRBs do not allow the use of the shortened form of the informed consent document 1.1.2. Informed consent shall be obtained under circumstances that offer the subject and/or his or her authorized representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether the subject should participate.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedures for Research Involving Human Participants
    Procedures for Research Involving Human Participants Approved by UNC’s Institutional Review Board March, 2014 Administered By Office of Research Campus Box 143 Greeley, CO 80639 970-351-1910 (voice) 970-351-1934 (FAX) http://www.unco.edu/research/research-integrity-and-compliance/institutional-review-board Table of Contents Preface 3 Purpose of the Institutional Review Board 4 Essentials for UNC Researchers Research Defined 5 Responsibilities (ethical considerations, role of advisor, co-investigators) 5 Research in the Classroom, Pilot Studies, Program Evaluations Considerations for UNC-IRB Approval Overview 7 Review Categories 8 Exempt Expedited Full Board Informed Consent and The Informed Consent Document 15 Standard Informed Consent Documentation Retaining & Storing Signed Informed Consent Documents Waivers to Standard Consent Procedures Research with Children & Other Vulnerable Populations 21 Research with Children – Parental Permission & Participant Assent Additional Considerations Audiorecordings: Exempt or Expedited? 23 Deception: Expedited or Full-Board? 24 Course-Based Research 25 Research Involving Students 25 Data Security……………………………………………………………………..26 Initiation, Continuation, Revision, Conclusion of IRB Approval 27 IRB Non-Compliance and Reported Irregularities during Research 27 Other UNC IRB Procedures That Address Federal Requirements 28 The Ethical Basis of IRB Policy 30 Frequently Asked Questions 33 Consent Document Examples 34 Informed Consent Example 1 (adult participant with signature; suggested for anonymous surveys) Informed Consent Example 2 (adult participant with no signature) Informed Consent Example 3 (parental consent for minor participant) Informed Assent (minor participant) page 2 Preface These policies and procedures were designed to assist faculty, staff, and students at the University of Northern Colorado (UNC) who conduct research with human participants (i.e., subjects).
    [Show full text]
  • Informed Consent to the Medical Treatment of Minors: Law & Practice Lawrence Schlam
    Health Matrix: The Journal of Law- Medicine Volume 10 | Issue 2 2000 Informed Consent to the Medical Treatment of Minors: Law & Practice Lawrence Schlam Joseph P. Wood, MD Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/healthmatrix Part of the Health Law and Policy Commons Recommended Citation Lawrence Schlam and Joseph P. Wood, MD, Informed Consent to the Medical Treatment of Minors: Law & Practice, 10 Health Matrix 141 (2000) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/healthmatrix/vol10/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Health Matrix: The ourJ nal of Law-Medicine by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. ARTICLES INFORMED CONSENT TO THE MEDICAL TREATMENT OF MINORS: LAW AND PRACTICE Lawrence Schlamt Joseph P. Wood, M.D.tt I. INTRODUCTION Children who are legally too young to give con- sent to treatment must still be treated as individu- als whose rights as members of society are not solely dependent on the legal definition of the day.' NOT THAT LONG AGO, those under twenty-one were thought to be incapable of consenting to medical treatment. Pa- rental approval was necessary or physicians might be liable in damages for non-consensual battery. 2 This was the case be- t Professor of Law, Northern Illinois University College of Law. The authors wish to acknowledge Shannon B. Rigby (J.D., N.I.U., 2000) for her invaluable re- search and assistance in preparing this Article for publication, and Linda Condon (J.D., N.LU., 1999) and Matthew Hevrin (J.D., N.,U., 1999) for their research in this area in a Child Law Seminar.
    [Show full text]
  • Research with Children: Ethical Processes and Challenges Around the World October 2016
    Research with children: ethical processes and challenges around the world October 2016 Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................ 2 Conducting research involving children in the Kingdom of Cambodia ........................ 3 Young Lives: experiences of seeking ethics approval: Ethiopia, India (Andhra Pradesh), Peru and Vietnam ...................................................................................... 8 Kenya notes on ethics review processes and challenges experienced .................... 15 Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, University of Oxford ................... 18 Brief summary of ethical-legal framework for child research in South Africa ............ 20 Engaging and involving young people in biomedical and health-related research in the UK ...................................................................................................................... 24 Regulation of research with children in Malawi and challenges that arise when doing research with children .............................................................................................. 28 Doing paediatric clinical trials in Peru and in the Latin America region: current challenges ................................................................................................................ 30 Overview of the regulatory framework for biomedical research involving legal minors in Singapore ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • You Didn't Even Notice! Elements of Effective Online Privacy Policies Amanda Grannis
    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 42 | Number 5 Article 1 2015 You Didn't Even Notice! Elements of Effective Online Privacy Policies Amanda Grannis Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Administrative Law Commons, and the Privacy Law Commons Recommended Citation Amanda Grannis, You Didn't Even Notice! Elements of Effective Online Privacy Policies, 42 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1109 (2015). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol42/iss5/1 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. YOU DIDN’T EVEN NOTICE! ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE ONLINE PRIVACY POLICIES Amanda Grannis* Introduction ........................................................................................... 1110 I. The Landscape of Notice in U.S. Privacy Law ............................... 1113 A. The Federal Trade Commission and Notice and Choice . 1113 B. The FTC’s Harm-Based Model ........................................... 1116 C. Statutory Protections of Privacy .......................................... 1118 D. Common Law Notice Standards Applied to the Digital Age ........................................................................................ 1120 II. Exploring the Elements of Effective Legal Notice ...................... 1123 A. Arbitration
    [Show full text]
  • A Re- Evaluation of First Options in Light of Recent Lower Court Decisions
    LCB10.2_FRANCO.DOC 5/17/2006 4:50:50 PM CASUALLY FINDING THE CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE: A RE- EVALUATION OF FIRST OPTIONS IN LIGHT OF RECENT LOWER COURT DECISIONS by Joseph L. Franco* This Comment discusses how an increasing number of courts have misapplied First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan’s “clear and unmistakable” evidence standard when deciding who has the authority to determine the arbitrability of parties’ disputes. Further, this Comment suggests that the misapplication threatens to force parties to arbitrate disputes that they did not agree to resolve by arbitration. First, this Comment briefly reviews developments leading up to the Court’s decision in First Options and then discusses the potential harm that may result from a casual finding of the requisite “clear and unmistakable” evidence, since such a finding forecloses independent judicial review. This Comment asserts that arbitrability determinations in consumer and employment contracts should always be the subject of independent judicial determination, proposes a standard for determining when parties have clearly and unmistakably evidenced an intent to have an arbitrator decide whether any disputes are arbitrable, and proposes a framework that courts may use in addressing challenges to the arbitrability of disputes. I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................444 II. THE FAA AND ITS TRANSFORMATION ............................................450 A. FAA’s Enactment & Original Scope..................................................450 B. The FAA Was a Procedural Act Applicable in Federal Court ..........451 C. FAA at a Crossroads: Expand or Contract? .....................................452 D. The Court’s Decision in Prima Paint Expanded the Scope of the FAA While Dramatically Limiting Judicial Oversight ......................453 1. Separability Doctrine Dramatically Limits Judicial Involvement .................................................................................453 2.
    [Show full text]
  • 310 PR.1 Informed Consent in Research Involving Children
    Yale University Institutional Review Boards 310 PR.1 Informed Consent in Research Involving Children Overview ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 Permission of Parents or Guardians ....................................................................................................................... 1 Assent .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Emancipated Minors and Waivers of Permission of Parent or Guardian .............................................................. 2 Research Involving Wards of the State or Other Entity ......................................................................................... 3 Research Involving Protected Health Information................................................................................................. 3 Overview This procedure describes the steps necessary to obtain legally effective informed consent in studies involving children. In most cases, children cannot provide consent to participate in research. Instead, permission from a parent or appropriate guardian is obtained along with the child’s assent. Permission of Parents or Guardians 1. Permission from parent(s) or guardian(s) is required for all research involving children unless waived by the IRB. The IRB will also determine whether parental permission is required from
    [Show full text]
  • Ihra-20180930 Ahrc
    Intersex Human Rights Australia September 2018 30 September 2018 Submission to the Australian Human Rights Commission on protecting the rights of people born with variations in sex characteristics in the context of medical interventions 1 Authors and endorsements The submission was written by co-executive director Morgan Carpenter, M.Bioeth. (Sydney), with input from the board and members of Intersex Human Rights Australia, and from representatives of the AIS Support Group Australia and People with Disability Australia. Please contact [email protected] or 0405 615 942 for further information or inquiries. Intersex Human Rights Australia (IHRA) is a national intersex-led organisation that promotes the human rights (including the bodily autonomy) of people born with intersex variations. Formerly known as Organisation Intersex International (OII) Australia, IHRA is a not-for-profit company, with Public Benevolent Institution (charitable) status: http://ihra.org.au. This submission is endorsed by: The AIS Support Group Australia (AISSGA), a peer support, information and advocacy group by and for people affected by androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) and/or related intersex variations and variations of sex characteristics, and their families: http://aissga.org.au Disabled People’s Organisations Australia (“DPOA”), a national coalition of Disabled People’s Organisations, which are run by and for people with disability and grounded in a normative human rights framework: http://www.dpoa.org.au The LGBTI Legal Service Inc, a Queensland non-profit community-based legal service: https://lgbtilegalservice.org.au People with Disability Australia (“PWDA”), a national disability rights and advocacy organisation, and member of DPOA. PWDA’s primary membership is made up of people with disability and organisations primarily constituted by people with disability.
    [Show full text]
  • Informed Assent Form Template for Children/Minors
    Research Ethics Review Committee (WHO ERC) 20, AVENUE APPIA – CH-1211 GENEVA 27 – SWITZERLAND – HTTP://INTRANET.WHO.INT/HOMES/RPC/ERC – HTTP://WWW.WHO.INT/RPC/RESEARCH_ETHICS Informed Assent Form Template for Children/Minors (language should be at a level appropriate to the child's age and development) This template is written for a pre-adolescent or young adolescent. Notes to Researchers: 1. Please note that this is a template developed by the WHO ERC to assist the Principal Investigator in the design of their informed consent forms (ICF). It is important that Principal Investigators adapt their own ICFs to the outline and requirements of their particular study. The logo of the Institution must be used on the ICF and not the WHO logo. 2. The informed assent form consists of two parts: the information sheet and the consent certificate. 3. Do not be concerned by the length of this template. It is long only because it contains guidance and explanations which are for you and which you will not include in the informed assent forms that you develop and provide to participants in your research. 4. This template includes examples of key questions that may be asked at the end of each section, that could ensure the understanding of the information being provided, especially if the research study is complex. These are just examples, and suggestions, and the investigators will have to modify the questions depending upon their study. 5. In this template: square brackets indicate where specific information is to be inserted bold lettering indicates sections or wording which should be included standard lettering is used for explanations to researchers only and must not be included in your assent forms.
    [Show full text]