NCT03242954

Brief Summary

The purpose of this study is to examine how the consent process affects the acceptability of participation in biomedical HIV prevention trials, from the perspective of behaviorally high-risk minors and the parents of minor adolescents.

Trial Health

87
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
254

participants targeted

Target at P50-P75 for not_applicable hiv

Timeline
Completed

Started Nov 2017

Geographic Reach
1 country

4 active sites

Status
completed

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

August 3, 2017

Completed
5 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

August 8, 2017

Completed
3 months until next milestone

Study Start

First participant enrolled

November 7, 2017

Completed
1.9 years until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

September 15, 2019

Completed
Same day until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

September 15, 2019

Completed
1.6 years until next milestone

Results Posted

Study results publicly available

April 22, 2021

Completed
Last Updated

April 22, 2021

Status Verified

March 1, 2021

Enrollment Period

1.9 years

First QC Date

August 3, 2017

Results QC Date

February 26, 2021

Last Update Submit

March 25, 2021

Conditions

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (4)

  • Mean Adolescent WTP Scores

    Comparing mean adolescent Willingness to Participate (WTP) scores across the three consent conditions and two trial types. WTP scores are based on the response to the question: "If offered the chance, how likely would you be to participate in the study?" Responses are collected using a Likert scale (definitely not participate, probably not participate, might or might not participate, probably participate, definitely participate) and converted to a numeric score with values ranging from 1 (definitely not participate) to 5 (definitely participate) for analysis.

    Day 1

  • Mean Parent WTS Scores

    Comparing mean parent Willingness to Support (WTS) scores across the three consent conditions and two trial types. WTS scores are based on the response to the question: "This is an acceptable approach to consent for your teenager's participation in the study." Responses are collected using a Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, strongly agree) and converted to a numeric score with values ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for analysis.

    Day 1

  • Effects of the Study Agent (Stage of Development and Method of Delivery) on High-risk Minor Adolescents' WTP Scores

    This data reflects adolescent Willingness to Participate (WTP) scores by study agent/trial type. After review of hypothetical consent documents for 2 study agents in different stages of development and with different methods of delivery (based on real-world studies ATN 113 and HPTN 077), adolescents are asked "If offered the chance, how likely would you be to participate in the study?" Responses are collected using a Likert scale (definitely not participate, probably not participate, might or might not participate, probably participate, definitely participate) and converted to a numeric score with values ranging from 1 (definitely not participate) to 5 (definitely participate) for analysis.

    Day 1

  • Effects of the Study Agent (Stage of Development and Method of Delivery) on Parents' Acceptability Scores

    After review of hypothetical consent documents for 2 study agents in different stages of development and with different methods of delivery (based on real-world trials ATN 113 and HPTN 077), parents are presented with vignettes for the 3 different consent conditions (autonomous minor consent, adult permission required, parental permission required) and asked "How acceptable is this approach to research consent?". Responses are collected on a Likert scale (completely unacceptable, unacceptable, neither unacceptable not acceptable, acceptable, completely acceptable) and converted to a numeric score with values ranging from 1 (definitely not acceptable) to 5 (definitely acceptable) for analysis.

    Day 1

Study Arms (4)

Adolescents: Consent Condition 1

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Autonomous minor consent

Other: Autonomous minor consent

Adolescents: Consent Condition 2

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Adult permission required

Other: Adult permission required

Adolescents: Consent Condition 3

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Parental permission required

Other: Parental permission required

Parents: Consent Conditions 1-3

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Autonomous minor consent, adult permission required, and parental permission required

Other: Autonomous minor consentOther: Adult permission requiredOther: Parental permission required

Interventions

Consent requirement where the participant is not required to get anyone's permission to participate in the trial.

Adolescents: Consent Condition 1Parents: Consent Conditions 1-3

Consent requirement where the participant is required to obtain an adult's permission to participate in the trial.

Adolescents: Consent Condition 2Parents: Consent Conditions 1-3

Consent requirement where the participant is required to obtain their parent's permission to participate in the trial.

Adolescents: Consent Condition 3Parents: Consent Conditions 1-3

Eligibility Criteria

Age14 Years - 17 Years
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersYes
Age GroupsChild (0-17)

You may qualify if:

  • Age 14-17 inclusive
  • Able to read and speak English
  • HIV status is negative or unknown
  • Engaged in high-risk sexual activity in the last six months

You may not qualify if:

  • Child of a parent already enrolled in the study
  • Able to read and speak English
  • Parent or guardian of an adolescent who is between ages 14-17
  • The parent/guardian's adolescent's HIV status is either negative or unknown
  • Parent of a child already enrolled in the study

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (4)

Children's Hospital Colorado/Univ of Colorado SOM

Aurora, Colorado, 80045, United States

Location

University of South Florida

Tampa, Florida, 33606, United States

Location

University of Chicago

Chicago, Illinois, 60637, United States

Location

Johns Hopkins University/SOM

Baltimore, Maryland, 21287, United States

Location

Related Publications (1)

  • Knopf A, Draucker CB, Fortenberry JD, Ott MA, Arrington-Sanders R, Reirden D, Schneider J, Straub D, Ofner S, Bakoyannis G, Zimet G. Parental Engagement in Consent Processes for Enrollment in Biomedical HIV Prevention Trials: Implications for Minor Adolescents' Willingness to Participate. J Adolesc Health. 2023 May;72(5):703-711. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2022.11.241. Epub 2023 Jan 14.

Results Point of Contact

Title
Amy Knopf
Organization
Indiana University School of Nursing

Study Officials

  • Amy Knopf, PhD, MPH, RN

    Indiana University School of Medicine

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
  • Matthew Psioda, PhD

    University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

    STUDY DIRECTOR

Publication Agreements

PI is Sponsor Employee
No
Restrictive Agreement
No

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
NONE
Purpose
OTHER
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Model Details: Consent 2.0 has a parallel group-like design for adolescents. Adolescents will be randomized into 1 of 3 consent conditions using a randomized block design that is stratified by study site and the adolescent's natal sex. The order in which the hypothetical trials are presented to adolescents will be randomized using a block design. A subset of 6-8 adolescents per site will be selected for a debriefing interview. Consent 2.0 has a crossover-like design for parents. Parents will provide feedback on all three consent conditions and for both hypothetical trials. The order in which the hypothetical trials are presented to parents will be determined using a randomized block design that is stratified by study site and the parent's adolescent's natal sex. The presentation order for the 3 consent condition vignettes for each hypothetical trial will be determined using a randomized block design. A subset of 6-8 parents by site will be selected for debriefing interview.
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
Assistance Professor, IU School of Nursing

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

August 3, 2017

First Posted

August 8, 2017

Study Start

November 7, 2017

Primary Completion

September 15, 2019

Study Completion

September 15, 2019

Last Updated

April 22, 2021

Results First Posted

April 22, 2021

Record last verified: 2021-03

Data Sharing

IPD Sharing
Will share

De-identified study data will be made available in the NICHD Data and Specimen Hub (DASH), a centralized resource for researchers to store de-identified data from NICHD supported studies for use in secondary research. NICHD DASH is a free public resource designed for the scientific research community.

Shared Documents
STUDY PROTOCOL, SAP
Time Frame
Data will be made available after data analyses have been completed, data has been de-identified, and all DASH submission requirements have been met and approved. Data will be available according to NICHD DASH timelines.
Access Criteria
Please see DASH guidelines for access criteria.
More information

Locations