Back

eConsent vs. Traditional Consent Among Prospective Biobank Participants: A Randomized Trial

Vogt-Yerem, R. L.; Heck, P. R.; Gjorgjieva, T.; Mestechkin, R.; Huynh, A.; Chabris, C. F.; Kirchner, H. L.; Wilbanks, J.; Doerr, M.; Wagner, J. K.; Meyer, M. N.

2025-11-02 health informatics
10.1101/2025.10.30.25339179 medRxiv
Show abstract

Electronic consent (eConsent) has the potential to cost-effectively scale research recruitment and improve equity in access to research benefits, but it is unclear whether it achieves comparable informedness compared to traditional consent. In a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial (N=604; ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04131062), we compared a human conversation-based consent process to an eConsent platform similar to that used by NIHs All of Us Research Program and by studies conducted via Apple ResearchKit. Average comprehension scores of participants randomized to eConsent were non-inferior (M = 85.8, SD = 14.7) to those randomized to traditional consent (M = 76.5, SD = 22.3; t(600.6) = 9.51, p < .001). Researchers should give serious consideration to adoption of eConsent as an alternative or supplement to traditional consent. Indeed, the pattern of results we observed suggests that eConsent might yield more informed research enrollment decisions.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.