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.
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.
For open-ended research, consent must be broad-and-deep or revisable, not frozen at enrolment.
Study-specific consent fits biobanks poorly; one argument favours a modified broad consent that is also 'deep', while another proposes dynamic consent — a personalised online platform through which participants are updated and re-asked as uses change.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Broad/deep biobank consent and dynamic consent both reject one-off study-specific forms, but one relies on criteria-based governance and the other on a living digital interface that keeps asking participants.
Same question, contrary or null result.
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 relies on criteria-based governance and the other on a living digital interface that keeps asking participants.
- 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?
History
When this study was placed
Dated entries from the concept change log — when this paper was added or removed as support, challenge, or qualifier on a claim.
Placed as supporting evidence on Informed consent
Study-specific consent fits biobanks poorly; one argument favours a modified broad consent that is also 'deep', while another proposes dynamic consent — a personalised online platform through which participants are updated and re-asked as uses change.
Removed as supporting evidence on Informed consent
Broad/deep biobank consent and dynamic consent both reject one-off study-specific forms, but one relies on criteria-based governance and the other on a living digital interface that keeps asking participants.
Placed as a challenge on Informed consent
Broad/deep biobank consent and dynamic consent both reject one-off study-specific forms, but one relies on criteria-based governance and the other on a living digital interface that keeps asking participants.
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.
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.
Inspect source passages
Can consent stay alive after enrolment?
These passages occur verbatim in the stored paper text. They support the points listed below; they do not verify every statement in the explanation.
What is Dynamic Consent?
Dynamic Consent is a term used to describe personalised, online consent and communication platforms []. Such platforms are primarily designed to achieve tw
Designed to?
communication platforms []. Such platforms are primarily designed to achieve two objectives: 1) facilitate the consent process and 2) facilitate two-way, o
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.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.