Informed consent
Can consent stay alive after enrolment?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Dynamic Consent is a personalised online platform for consent and communication so participants can be invited, updated, and followed as research uses change.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Other — Conceptual proposal of Dynamic Consent platforms for ongoing biomedical research participation
- N
- Design/ethics proposal; not an empirical trial N
- Population
- Biomedical and biobank research participants facing changing secondary uses
- Outcome
- Personalised online consent/communication as an alternative to one-off static consent
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
The informed-consent process should ensure participants understand aims. Dynamic Consent platforms facilitate communication over time in changing research. Broad-consent definitions vary; a static form struggles when collections have multiple uses.
Methodology
The authors set the problem of demanding informed consent in population and clinical studies, contrast biobank broad consent to multiple uses, and present Dynamic Consent as an interface for ongoing participation rather than a one-off signature.
Limitations
This is a conceptual proposal, not an RCT of a consent app. It does not prove recruitment will rise.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Dynamic consent is a personalised online platform so participants can be invited, updated and followed as research uses change.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Broad/deep biobank consent and dynamic consent both reject one-off study-specific forms, but one leans on criteria-based protection and the other on a living digital interface.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
The method is also used to redesign research governance. The Dynamic Consent paper starts from a practical problem (broad consent definitions vary and a one-off form struggles when biobank collections have multiple uses) and proposes an online platform for ongoing invitation, updating and communication, though as a conceptual proposal it does not show that recruitment would rise.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
What counts as the empirical component. Mehling and colleagues collect their own practitioner interviews; the narrative-devices paper reuses a small interview literature produced by others; the Dynamic Consent paper proposes a solution to an empirical problem without new data at all. The label 'empirical' covers very different amounts of first-hand evidence.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Broad/deep biobank consent and dynamic consent both reject one-off study-specific forms, but one leans on criteria-based protection and the other on a living digital interface.
- Supports · Is broad biobank consent good enough?
What counts as the empirical component. Mehling and colleagues collect their own practitioner interviews; the narrative-devices paper reuses a small interview literature produced by others; the Dynamic Consent paper proposes a solution to an empirical problem without new data at all. The label 'empirical' covers very different amounts of first-hand evidence.
- Supports · What do mind-body therapies share?
- Supports · Can brain data help us tell who we are?
Discoveries this paper informs or conflicts with
- Biobank consent is broken in one specific way, and the two proposed fixes contradict each other
This paper conflicts with this development.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.