consent form example for research study

• Find My GCO
• IACUC applications (Cayuse Animal Management System)
• IBC Applications (eMUA)
• IRB Applications (RASS-IRB) External
• Institutional Profile & DUNS
• Rates and budgets
• Report external interests (COI)
• Join List Servs
• Ask EHS External
• Research Development Services
• Cornell Data Services External
• Find Your Next Funding Opportunity
• Travel Registry External
• RASS (Formerly Form 10 and NFA) External
• International research activities External
• Register for Federal and Non-Federal Systems
• Disclose Foreign Collaborations and Support
• Web Financials (WebFin2) External
• PI Dashboard External
• Research metrics & executive dashboards
• Research Financials (formerly RA Dashboard) External
• Subawards in a Proposal
• Proposal Development, Review, and Submission
• Planning for Animals, Human Participants, r/sNA, Hazardous Materials, Radiation
• Budgets, Costs, and Rates
• Collaborate with Weill Cornell Medicine
• Award Negotiation and Finalization
• Travel and International Activities
• Project Finances
• Project Modifications
• Research Project Staffing
• Get Confidential Info, Data, Equipment, or Materials
• Managing Subawards
• Animals, Human Participants, r/sNA, Hazardous Materials, Radiation
• Project Closeout Financials
• Project Closeout
• End a Project Early
• Protecting an Invention, Creation, Discovery
• Entrepreneurial and Startup Company Resources
• Gateway to Partnership Program
• Engaging with Industry
• Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)
• Export Controls
• Research with Human Participants
• Research Security
• Work with Live Vertebrate Animals
• Research Safety
• Regulated Biological Materials in Research
• Financial Management
• Conflicts of Interest
•   Search

IRB Consent Form Templates

A collection of informed consent, assent, and debriefing templates that can be used for your human participant research study.

General Consent Form Templates

Social and Behavioral Research Projects (last updated 03/16/2023)

Biomedical Research Projects (last updated 07/18/2022)

Consent Form Templates for Specific Biomedical Procedures

MRI and fMRI

Blood Collection by Finger Stick

Blood Collection by Venipuncture

Oral Consent Template

Guidance for Protocols Involving Oral Consent

Debriefing Template

Guidance and Template for Debriefing Participants

Studies Involving Children (Assent/Permission Forms)

Parent-Guardian Permission for Studies Involving Children

Sample Parental Notification Form

Sample Child Assent Form

Performance Release for Minors

Performance Releases

Performance Release for Adults

Sample Consent Forms

Consent form templates.

These consent form templates have been posted for your reference.  When completing and IRB submission in IRBIS, please fill in the application and use the consent form builder specific to your project.  For more information, please find instructions here .

Summary of Changes to the Regulations for Informed Consent:  Revised Common Rule Changes to Informed Consent and Waiver Requirements

Summary of Changes to Consent Documents:

• Informed Consent Documents – Version 2.0 Summary of Changes
• Informed Consent Documents – Version 2.1 Summary of Changes
• Informed Consent Documents – 10/26/2020 Summary of Changes
• Informed Consent Documents – 4/10/2023 Summary of Changes

Concise Summary examples can be found here .

Guidance on the use of plain language in consent forms:

• Clinical Research Glossary
• Webinar: The Promise of Plain Language: Launching a Glossary to Support Participant Understanding of Clinical Research – Recording & Slides

There are a few additional forms that are not provided online and may be accessed below.  As needed, these should be completed and uploaded to your IRB application.

Foreign Language Consent Forms

COVID-19 Related Forms:

• Spanish-IRB-COVID Information Sheet
• Spanish COVID Consent Letter v2
• Spanish COVID Informational Sheet Translation Certificate

Informed Consent Short Form (for a single subject who may be illiterate, or otherwise unable to read the consent form — used when full consent form has to be read or translated for subject).

• Informed Consent Short Form Guidance
• Simplified Chinese

HIPAA Templates

• Sample HIPAA Authorization Template
• Sample HIPAA Authorization Template in Spanish ( Certification )

• Privacy Policy

Home » Informed Consent in Research – Types, Templates and Examples

Informed Consent in Research – Types, Templates and Examples

Table of Contents

Informed Consent in Research

Informed consent is a process of communication between a researcher and a potential participant in which the researcher provides adequate information about the study, its risks and benefits, and the participant voluntarily agrees to participate. It is a cornerstone of ethical research involving human subjects and is intended to protect the rights and welfare of participants.

Types of Informed Consent in Research

There are different types of informed consent in research , which may vary depending on the nature of the study, the type of participants, and the context. Some of the common types of informed consent in research include:

Written Consent

This is the most common type of informed consent, where participants are provided with a written document that explains the study and its requirements. The document typically includes information about the purpose of the study, procedures involved, risks and benefits, confidentiality, and participant rights. Participants are asked to sign the document as an indication of their willingness to participate.

Oral Consent

In some cases, oral consent may be used when a written document is not practical or feasible. Oral consent involves explaining the study and its requirements to participants verbally and obtaining their consent. This method may be used for studies with illiterate or visually impaired participants or when conducting research remotely.

Implied Consent

Implied consent is used in studies where participants’ actions are taken as an indication of their willingness to participate. For example, a participant may be considered to have given implied consent if they show up for a scheduled appointment for the study.

Opt-out Consent

This method is used when participants are given the opportunity to decline participation in a study. Participants are provided with information about the study and are given the option to opt-out if they do not wish to participate. This method is commonly used in population-based studies or surveys.

Assent is used in studies involving minors or participants who are unable to provide informed consent due to cognitive impairment or disability. Assent involves obtaining the agreement of the participant to participate in the study, along with the consent of a legally authorized representative.

Informed Consent Format in Research

Here’s a basic format for informed consent that can be customized for specific research studies:

• Introduction : Begin by introducing yourself and the purpose of the study. Clearly state that participation is voluntary and that participants can withdraw at any time without penalty.
• Study Overview : Provide a brief overview of the study, including its purpose, methods, and expected outcomes.
• Procedures : Describe the procedures involved in the study in clear, concise language. Include information about the types of data that will be collected, how they will be collected, and how long the study will take.
• Risks and Benefits : Outline the potential risks and benefits of participating in the study. Be honest and upfront about any discomfort, inconvenience, or potential harm that may be involved, as well as any potential benefits.
• Confidentiality and Privacy : Explain how participant data will be collected, stored, and used, and what measures will be taken to ensure confidentiality and privacy.
• Voluntary Participation: Emphasize that participation is voluntary and that participants can withdraw at any time without penalty. Explain how to withdraw from the study and who to contact if participants have questions or concerns.
• Compensation and Incentives: If applicable, explain any compensation or incentives that will be offered to participants for their participation.
• Contact Information: Provide contact information for the researcher or a representative from the research team who can answer questions and address concerns.
• Signature : Ask participants to sign and date the consent form to indicate their voluntary agreement to participate in the study.

Informed Consent Templates in Research

Here is an example of an informed consent template that can be used in research studies:

Introduction

You are being invited to participate in a research study. Before you decide whether or not to participate, it is important for you to understand why the research is being done, what your participation will involve, and what risks and benefits may be associated with your participation.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is [insert purpose of study].

If you agree to participate, you will be asked to [insert procedures involved in the study].

Risks and Benefits

There are several potential risks and benefits associated with participation in this study. Some of the risks include [insert potential risks of participation]. Some of the benefits include [insert potential benefits of participation].

Confidentiality

Your participation in this study will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by law. All data collected during the study will be stored in a secure location and only accessed by authorized personnel. Your name and other identifying information will not be included in any reports or publications resulting from this study.

Voluntary Participation

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. If you choose not to participate or if you withdraw from the study, there will be no negative consequences.

Contact Information

If you have any questions or concerns about the study, you can contact the investigator(s) at [insert contact information]. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact [insert name of institutional review board and contact information].

Statement of Consent

By signing below, you acknowledge that you have read and understood the information provided in this consent form and that you freely and voluntarily consent to participate in this study.

Participant Signature: _____________________________________ Date: _____________

Investigator Signature: ____________________________________ Date: _____________

Examples of Informed Consent in Research

Here’s an example of informed consent in research:

Title : The Effects of Yoga on Stress and anxiety levels in college students

Introduction :

We are conducting a research study to investigate the effects of yoga on stress and anxiety levels in college students. We are inviting you to participate in this study.

If you agree to participate, you will be asked to attend four yoga classes per week for six weeks. Before and after the six-week period, you will be asked to complete surveys about your stress and anxiety levels. Additionally, we will measure your heart rate variability at the beginning and end of the six-week period.

Risks and Benefits:

There are no known risks associated with participating in this study. However, the benefits of practicing yoga may include decreased stress and anxiety levels, increased flexibility and strength, and improved overall well-being.

Confidentiality:

All information collected during this study will be kept strictly confidential. Your name will not be used in any reports or publications resulting from this study.

Voluntary Participation:

Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You are free to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.

Contact Information:

If you have any questions or concerns about this study, you may contact the principal investigator at (phone number/email address).

By signing this form, I acknowledge that I have read and understood the above information and agree to participate in this study.

Participant Signature: ___________________________

Date: ___________________________

Researcher Signature: ___________________________

Importance of Informed Consent in Research

Here are some reasons why informed consent is important in research:

• Protection of participants’ rights : Informed consent ensures that participants understand the nature and purpose of the research, the risks and benefits of participating, and their rights as participants. It empowers them to make an informed decision about whether to participate or not.
• Ethical responsibility : Researchers have an ethical responsibility to respect the autonomy of participants and to protect them from harm. Informed consent is a crucial way to uphold these principles.
• Legality : Informed consent is a legal requirement in most countries. It is necessary to protect researchers from legal liability and to ensure that research is conducted in accordance with ethical standards.
• Trust : Informed consent helps build trust between researchers and participants. When participants understand the research process and their role in it, they are more likely to trust the researchers and the study.
• Quality of research : Informed consent ensures that participants are fully informed about the research and its purpose, which can lead to more accurate and reliable data. This, in turn, can improve the quality of research outcomes.

Purpose of Informed Consent in Research

Informed consent is a critical component of research ethics, and it serves several important purposes, including:

• Respect for autonomy: Informed consent respects an individual’s right to make decisions about their own health and well-being. It recognizes that individuals have the right to choose whether or not to participate in research, based on their own values, beliefs, and preferences.
• Protection of participants : Informed consent helps protect research participants from potential harm or risks that may arise from their involvement in a study. By providing participants with information about the study, its risks and benefits, and their rights, they are able to make an informed decision about whether to participate.
• Transparency: Informed consent promotes transparency in the research process. It ensures that participants are fully informed about the research, including its purpose, methods, and potential outcomes, which helps to build trust between researchers and participants.
• Legal and ethical requirements: Informed consent is a legal and ethical requirement in most research studies. It ensures that researchers obtain voluntary and informed agreement from participants to participate in the study, which helps to protect the rights and welfare of research participants.

Advantages of Informed Consent in Research

The advantages of informed consent in research are numerous, and some of the most significant benefits include:

• Protecting participants’ autonomy: Informed consent allows participants to exercise their right to self-determination and make decisions about whether to participate in a study or not. It also ensures that participants are fully informed about the risks, benefits, and implications of participating in the study.
• Promoting transparency and trust: Informed consent helps build trust between researchers and participants by providing clear and accurate information about the study’s purpose, procedures, and potential outcomes. This transparency promotes open communication and a positive research experience for all parties involved.
• Reducing the risk of harm: Informed consent ensures that participants are fully aware of any potential risks or side effects associated with the study. This knowledge enables them to make informed decisions about their participation and reduces the likelihood of harm or negative consequences.
• Ensuring ethical standards are met : Informed consent is a fundamental ethical requirement for conducting research involving human participants. By obtaining informed consent, researchers demonstrate their commitment to upholding ethical principles and standards in their research practices.
• Facilitating future research : Informed consent enables researchers to collect high-quality data that can be used for future research purposes. It also allows participants to make an informed decision about whether they are willing to participate in future studies.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

As the nation’s largest public research university, the Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) aims to catalyze, support and safeguard U-M research and scholarship activity.

The Office of the Vice President for Research oversees a variety of interdisciplinary units that collaborate with faculty, staff, students and external partners to catalyze, support and safeguard research and scholarship activity.

ORSP manages pre-award and some post-award research activity for U-M. We review contracts for sponsored projects applying regulatory, statutory and organizational knowledge to balance the university's mission, the sponsor's objectives, and the investigator's intellectual pursuits.

Ethics and compliance in research covers a broad range of activity from general guidelines about conducting research responsibly to specific regulations governing a type of research (e.g., human subjects research, export controls, conflict of interest).

eResearch is U-M's site for electronic research administration. Access: Regulatory Management (for IRB or IBC rDNA applications); Proposal Management (eRPM) for the e-routing, approval, and submission of proposals (PAFs) and Unfunded Agreements (UFAs) to external entities); and Animal Management (for IACUC protocols and ULAM).

Sponsored Programs manages the post-award financial activities of U-M's research enterprise and other sponsored activities to ensure compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws as well as sponsor regulations. The Office of Contract Administration (OCA) is also part of the Office of Finance - Sponsored Programs.

Ethics & Compliance

• eResearch IRB NextGen Project
• Class Assignments & IRB Approval
• Operations Manual (OM)
• Authorization Agreement Process
• ORCR Policies and Procedures
• Self-Assessment Tools
• Resources and Web Links
• Single IRB-of-Record (sIRB) Process
• Certificate of Confidentiality Process
• HRPP Education Resources
• How to Register a Clinical Trial
• Maintaining and Updating ClinicalTrial.gov Records
• How to Report Clinical Trial Results
• Research Study Participation - FAQ
• International Research
• Coordinated Services & Practices (CSP)
• Collaborative Research: IRB-HSBS sIRB Process
• Data Security Guidelines
• Research Incentive Guidelines
• Routine fMRI Study Guidelines
• IRB-HSBS Website Directory and Guidance
• Waivers of Informed Consent Guidelines
• IRB Review Process
• IRB Amendment Process
• Continuing Review Process
• Incident Reporting (AE/ORIO)
• IRB Repository Application
• IRB-HSBS Education
• Newsletter Archive

You are here

• Human Subjects
• IRB Health Sciences and Behavioral Sciences (HSBS)

Informed Consent Guidelines & Templates

U-m hrpp informed consent information.

See the HRPP Operations Manual, Part 3, Section III, 6 e .

The human subjects in your project must participate willingly , having been adequately informed about the research.  

• If the human subjects are part of a vulnerable population (e.g., prisoners, cognitively impaired individuals, or children), special protections are required.
• If the human subjects are children , in most cases you must first obtain the permission of parents in addition to the consent of the children.

Contact the IRB Office for more information .

See the Waiver Guidelines  for information about, and policies regarding, waivers for informed consent or informed consent documentation. 

See the updated  Basic Informed Consent Elements document  for a list of 2018 Common Rule basic and additional elements. 

Informed Consent Process

Informed consent is the process of telling potential research participants about the key elements of a research study and what their participation will involve.  The informed consent process is one of the central components of the ethical conduct of research with human subjects.  The consent process typically includes providing a written consent document containing the required information (i.e., elements of informed consent) and the presentation of that information to prospective participants.  

In most cases, investigators are expected to obtain a signature from the participant on a written informed consent document (i.e., to document the consent to participate) unless the IRB has waived the consent requirement or documentation (signature) requirement .

• Projects which collect biospecimens for genetic analysis must obtain documented (signed) informed consent.
• It is an ethical best practice to include an informed consent process for most exempt research .   IRB-HSBS reviews, as applicable, the IRB application for exempt research, but not the informed consent document itself.  A suggested consent template for exempt research can be found below under the References and Resources section.  A companion protocol template for exempt research may be found in the feature box, Related Information (top right).

Informed consent documents

An  informed consent document  is typically used to provide subjects with the information they need to make a decision to volunteer for a research study.  Federal regulations ( 45 CFR 46.116 ) provide the framework for the type of information (i.e., the "elements") that must be included as part of the consent process.  New with the revised 2018 Common Rule is the requirement that the consent document begin with a "concise and focused" presentation of key information  that will help potential participants understand why they might or might not want to be a part of a research study.  

Key Information Elements

The image below displays the  five elements identified in the preamble to the revised Final Rule  as suggested key information.  

Note: Element number 5 (alternative procedures) applies primarily to clinical research.

General Information & Tips for Preparing a Consent Document

Reading level.

Informed consent documents should be written in plain language at a level appropriate to the subject population, generally at an 8th grade reading level .  A best practice is to have a colleague or friend read  the  informed consent document for comprehension before submission with the IRB application.  Always:

For guidance on using plain language, examples, and more, visit: http://www.plainlanguage.gov/

• Tailor the document to the subject population.
• Avoid technical jargon or overly complex terms.
• Use  straightforward  language that is understandable.

Writing tips

The informed consent document should succinctly describe the research as it has been presented in the IRB application.

• Use the second (you) or third person (he/she) to present the study details.  Avoid use of the first person (I).  
• Include a statement of agreement at the conclusion of the informed consent document. 
• The consent doucment must be consistent with what is described in the IRB application.

Document Formating for Uploading into eResearch

• Remove "track changes" or inserted comments from the consent documentation prior to uploading the document into the IRB application (Section 10-1) for review.
• Use a consistent, clearly identified file naming convention for multiple consent/assent documents.

Informed Consent Templates

IRB-HSBS strongly recommends that investigators use one of the informed consent templates developed to include the required consent elements (per  45 CFR 46.116 ), as well as other required regulatory and institutional language.  The templates listed below include the new consent elements outlined in the 2018 Common Rule.

References and Resources

Informed consent guidance.

PDF.  Lists the basic and additional elements required for inclusion or to be included, as appropriate to the research, in the informed consent documentation, along with the citiation number [e.g., _0116(b)(1)] within the revised Common Rule.  New elements associated with the 2018 Common Rule are indicated in bold text.

Informed Consent Templates (2018 Common Rule)

Strongly recommended for studies that involve the collection of biospecimens and/or genetic or genomic analysis, particularly  federally sponsored clinical trials that are required to post a consent document on a public website.  Last updated:  04/10/2024.

(Word) Blank template with 2018 revised Common Rule key information and other required informed consent elements represented as section headers; includes instructions and recommended language.  It is strongly advised that you modify this template to draft a project-specific informed consent document for your study for IRB review and approval.  Last updated: 04/10/2024

Other Templates

Informed Consent documents are not reviewed by the IRB for Exempt projects.  However, researchers are ethically bound to conduct a consent process with subjects.  This template is suggested for use with Exempt projects. Last updated 4/17/24

(Word) General outline to create and post a flyer seeking participation in a human subjects study.  Includes instructions.

(Word) Two sample letters for site approval cooperation between U-M and other institutions, organizations, etc.  Letters of cooperation must be on U-M letterhead and signed by an appropriate official.  These letters are uploaded into the Performance Site section of the eResearch IRB application.

For use by U-M Dearborn faculty, staff, and students conducting non-exempt human subjects research using subject pools. Last updated 4/10/24

For use by U-M Dearborn faculty, staff, and students conducting exempt human subjects research using subject pools

Researchers who will conduct data collection that is subject to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) must use this template in tandem with a general consent for participation template/document.

• Brief protocol for exempt research including data management and security questionnaire

Child Assent and Parental Permission

• Child assent ages 3-6
• Child assent 7-11
• Parent permission
• Child assent 12-14

IRB-Health Sciences and Behavioral Sciences (IRB-HSBS)

Phone: (734) 936-0933 Fax: (734) 936-1852 [email protected]

• Human Subjects Protections

Informed Consent and Consent Forms for Research Participants

Informed consent is a communication process by which researchers reach agreement with people about whether they wish to participate in research. Confusing informed consent with a signed consent form may violate the ethical intent of informed consent, which is to communicate clearly and respectfully, to foster trust, comprehension, and good decision making, and to ensure that participation is voluntary.

Consent forms are often written in “legalese” and are long, complex, and often inappropriate to the culture or language of the potential subject, insulting, and virtually impossible for most people to comprehend. They convey to some the impression that signing such a formal-looking document commits them to participation. Among subjects who willingly sign documents, most sign the consent form without reading it.

How has this come to pass? Early concern with ethics of human research was about biomedical research and focused on the necessity of obtaining informed consent. Over the decades, the elements of informed consent have grown in number, as has the idea that informed consent is a form that is to be signed by the subject. According to the Federal Regulation of Human Research 46.117(a):

Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, informed consent shall be documented by the use of a written consent form approved by the IRB and signed by the subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative. A copy shall be given to the person signing the form.

However, many researchers and the Institutional Review Boards that govern their research fail to recognize that 46.117(c) provides for a waiver of signed consent forms:

(c) An IRB may waive the requirement for the investigator to obtain a signed consent form for some or all subjects if it finds either: (1) That the only record linking the subject and the research would be the consent document and the principal risk would be potential harm resulting from a breach of confidentiality. Each subject will be asked whether the subject wants documentation linking the subject with the research, and the subject’s wishes will govern, or (2) That the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of the research context.

The reason for obtaining a signed consent form has always been much more to protect the researcher and the institution than to serve the interests of the research subject. In case the subject claims later that consent was inadequate or omitted, the researcher can counter by showing the form. Recently, the Office of Human Research Protection has imposed highly publicized and costly sanctions against a few research institutions. Understandably, IRBs and research administrators consider it in their self-interest to make highly conservative decisions. Since IRBs must take steps to justify waiving documentation of informed consent by deeming the research to be minimal risk, many consider it safer not to do so, fearing that such an action might leave them open to questions by the OHRP. Thus, the reason for obtaining a signed consent form is typically to protect the institution, not the subject. Researchers, science, institutions, subjects, and IRBs would all be better off if they made intelligent interpretations of the requirements of the Common Rule.

The Social and Behavioral Sciences Working Group has made various recommendations based on the Common Rule, designed to guide social and behavioral researchers and IRBs out of such conundrums. The authors, both members of the Working Group, developed recommendations concerning informed consent, some of which are summarized here:

1. Informed consent should take the form of an open, easily understood communication process. Typically, this means a friendly verbal exchange between researcher and subject, with a written summary of the information for the subject to keep, as appropriate. (The copy for the subject to keep would be inappropriate if the written record of the subject’s participation could be damaging to the subject, as when the research is about domestic violence, or illegal behavior). Both the verbal and written discussion should be brief, and simply phrased at such a level that all of the subjects can understand it.

2. Subjects must receive enough easily understood, accurate information to judge whether the risk or inconvenience involved is at a level they can accept. The responsibility rests with the investigator to describe any risks accurately and understandably. There are many kinds of minor or everyday risks or inconveniences that most persons would gladly undertake if it were their choice to do so, but which they would not wish to have imposed upon them unilaterally. However, some may make a rational decision that the experience would be too stressful, risky, or unpleasant for some idiosyncratic reason that applies to them and not to other subjects.

3. Especially when the research procedure is long and complex, the researcher must make it quite clear that the subject is free to ask questions at any time. Informed consent, as a conversation (not a form), needs to be available throughout the research, as subjects do not necessarily develop questions or concerns about their participation until they are well into the research experience. For example, a discussion of confidentiality may not capture subjects’ attention or comprehension until they are asked some quite personal questions in the ensuing research experience.

4. When subjects can readily refuse to participate by hanging up the phone or tossing out a mailed survey, the informed consent can be extremely brief (a sentence or two). Courtesy and professionalism require that the identity of the researcher and research institution be mentioned, along with the nature and purpose of the research. However, if there are no risks, benefits, or confidentiality issues involved, these topics and the right to refuse to participate need not be mentioned, as such details would be gratuitous and might decrease participation by implying greater risk that actually exists. If the researcher has any connection with the institution at which the subjects receive health care or other essential services, it is necessary to mention the right of the research subject to refuse or withdraw without prejudice. Such rights may be honored implicitly by making it clear that you are asking their permission to involve them as research subjects.

5. Verbal informed consent need not be detailed and written consent is not appropriate when the research is not concerned with sensitive personal information and when subjects are peers or superiors of the researcher.

6. The cultural norms and life-styles of subjects should be considered when deciding how to approach informed consent. For example, research on homeless injection drug users should probably be preceded by a several week-long process of “hanging out” and talking with them. The resulting informal communication will raise issues they wish to discuss with the researcher. The conditions under which the research is conducted can then be negotiated orally between the researcher and the community members, as appropriate. Written documents and signed forms would expose subjects to risk of arrest and serve no redeeming purpose.

7. A wide range of media are appropriate for administering informed consent. Video tapes, brochures, group discussions, web sites, community newsletters, and the “grape vine” can be more appropriate ways of communicating with potential subjects than the potentially confusing formal consent forms that often are used.

8. When written or signed consent places subjects at risk, it must be waived. There are times when the written record is the only evidence that the subject has participated in a study in which there is acknowledgement or appearance of situations that would place the subject at risk.

9. When it is important to have some record of the informed consent but when written or signed consent would place the subject at risk or be difficult for the subject to read, one useful procedure is to have a trusted colleague witness the verbal consent.

10. Community consultation, or meeting with community leaders of the potential subjects, is a useful way to plan research that is likely to raise sensitive questions among those to be studied and members of their community. This is not a substitute for individual informed consent, but often clears the way for potential subjects to be ready to decide whether to participate.

11. In certain circumstances, persons are not in a position to decide whether to consent until immediately after their participation, e.g., in brief sidewalk interviews, which persons are likely to welcome.

12. Some research cannot validly be conducted if all details are disclosed at the outset. The alternatives to outright deception of subjects are to a) obtain permission to provide only a description of what the subject will experience, with an agreement that the full details of the study will be disclosed afterward; b) obtain permission to engage in concealment or deception with the understanding that pilot research has shown that peers of the subject do not find such concealment or deception objectionable and that a full explanation will follow their participation, c) explain that the subject might be enrolled in one of several possible conditions and to gain permission to disclose in which of these the subject was actually enrolled after his or her participation is completed.

Author’s Note: The Social and Behavioral Sciences Working Group (formerly a part of the National Human Research Protections Advisory Council but now an independent body) chaired by Felice Levine helped to develop these ideas.

Reference Melton, G., Levine, R. J., Koocher, G., Rosethal, R., & Thompson, W. (1988). Community Consultation in Socially Sensitive Research: Lessons from Clinical Trials on Treatments for AIDS. American Psychologist , 43, 573-581.

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

About the Authors

Joan Sieber is professor of psychology at California State University, Hayward. She received her bachelor's, master's, and doctorate from the University of Delaware. Robert J. Levine is professor of medicine and co-chair of the interdisciplinary bioethics project at Yale University. He is also the founding editor of IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research.

Making a Career Choice: Follow in Your Own Footsteps

In a guest column, APS Fellow Barbara Wanchisen shares observations and ideas on broadening career opportunities for psychological scientists.

Student Notebook: Finding Your Path in Psychological Science

Feeling unsure or overwhelmed as an early-career psychology student? Second-year graduate student Mariel Barnett shares advice to quell uncertainties.

Matching Psychology Training to Job Market Realities

APS President Wendy Wood discusses how graduate programs can change the habit of focusing on academic-career preparation.

Privacy Overview

• IRB-SBS Home
• Contact IRB-SBS
• IRB SBS Staff Directory
• IRB SBS Board Members
• About the IRB-SBS
• CITI Training
• Education Events
• Virginia IRB Consortium
• IRB-SBS Learning Shots
• HRPP Education & Training
• Student Support
• Access iProtocol
• Getting Started
• iProtocol Question Guide
• iProtocol Management
• Protocol Review Process
• Certificate of Confidentiality
• Deception and/or Withholding Information from a Participant
• Ethnographic Research
• IRB-SBS 101
• IRB-SBS Glossary
• Participant Pools 
• Paying Participants
• Research in an Educational Setting
• Research in an International Setting and/or Location
• Risk-Sensitive Populations
• Student Researchers and Faculty Sponsors
• Study Funding and the IRB
• Understanding Risk in Research
• Vulnerable Participants
• IRB-SBS PAM & Ed
• Federal Regulations
• Ethical Principals
• Partner Offices
• Determining Human Subjects Research
• Determining HSR or SBS

Consent Templates

The templates below were created to help you create the documents you will need to communicate to participants what they will do in the study. The documents you provide participants will range from recruitment materials to post-debrief consent forms, and you need to submit everything that you provide to a participant to our Board for review. For more information about the consent process see  Consent .

• General Consent Template : This form covers all of the basic elements that are required for a consent document. Even if you don't plan to use this exact document, refer to it to ensure that you have all of the appropriate elements in place in your consent procedure.
• Electronic Consent Template :  This form is modeled after the General Consent Template with some modifications that make it more appropriate for an online format. For more information about this template, see Electronic Consent . 
• Parent Consent : If you are including minors in your study, you will need to provide a consent form for parents and an age appropriate assent form for minors. This form is a guide for creating a parent informed consent document. This form can also be used as a guide for surrogate consent procedures.
• Minor Assent (for ages 13-17) : This template provides the basic elements required for older minors to provide assent and could also be used as a model for higher functioning individuals with diminished mental capacity.
• Minor Assent (for ages 7-12) : This template provides the basic elements required for younger minors to provide assent and could also be used as a model for higher functioning individuals with diminished mental capacity. For children younger than 7, assent forms are not required but include information in the consent section regarding what you will say to them about the study (where appropriate).
• Capacity to Consent Template : For some participant populations, it may be necessary to determine if a participant is able to provide consent; if not, a surrogate can be used (you will also need a surrogate consent form and participant assent form, similar to the parent/child consent/assent forms).
• GDPR Informed Consent Addendum : If you are collecting data from citizens of the European Union or the United Kingdom, you will need to provide additional information to your participants, per the GDPR. For more information, see the Research in an International Setting and/or Location and International Research Data Source .  
• Study Information Sheet : While many studies do not require researchers to collected signed consent forms, we generally require that participants receive a Study Information Sheet to provide them with information about the study. This information can be provided as a paper document at the beginning of a survey.
• Electronic Study Information Page : This template is similar to the Study Information Sheet with modification for an electronic delivery. For more information about this template, see Electronic Consent .  
• Parent Notification Template : Typically used for studies in an educational setting (particularly where the study is exempt but parent notification is still required), this template is a guide for creating a notification letter to send home to parents.
• Oral Consent Card : Typically used in anthropology studies where the participant may be uncomfortable with a form and/or unable to use it, the Oral Consent Card provides all of the elements required for consent in a bullet format so that the researcher can refer to each point as he or she is obtaining consent from the participant.
• Oral Consent Template : This form is also used in situations where the participant is uncomfortable with a form and/or unable to use it. It is more suited to non-anthropology research (though anthropologists are welcome to refer to it as well).
• Sample Debriefing Form : A debriefing form is a summary of the study given to a participant in a deception study and/or a study that includes students from a participant pool. The purpose is to educate participants about the study and to provide them with resources, particularly if the study is upsetting.
• Advertising Flyer Template : Recruitment materials are part of the consent process and it is important that participants are accurately informed about the study throughout the process. You are not required to use this flyer template (it is a model appropriate for a flyer posted around campus), but it is important that you follow the  guide provided in Recruitment .
• ResearchMatch Advertising Template : The NIH funds a free and secure recruitment tool called ResearchMatch that helps to connect researchers with volunteers that are interested in participating in studies. If you are interested in using ResearchMatch to help advertise for your study, complete this ResearchMatch Advertising Template and upload.
• Materials Release Form : The data you collect from your participants may be useful in other spheres, such as an educational tool and/or library archive. Using data in this manner is beyond the scope of the study and you should seek additional permission to use the participant's data in this way. This form allows a participant to declare how they would like their materials to be used by the researcher if the researcher wants to use the materials in situations beyond the study.
• Data Release Form : This form is similar to the Post-Debrief Consent Form; it is used when a participant has been recorded or photographed without their knowledge.
• Post-Debrief Consent Form : This form is used in a deception study after the deception is revealed to the participant. The participant is given an opportunity to decide if they still want to participate after the true purpose of the study is revealed.
• The title of protocol must match the title on all consent forms.   The title must be relevant, appropriate, and easy to understand. Include the project title on all pages of the consent form.
• List the page numbers on all pages of the consent form  in the standard format: Page 1.
• Delete all colored text from the final copy of your form.   The colored text is for explanation purposes only.
• Make sure that the form matches the descriptions in the protocol  and vice versa.
• Include all relevant information in the consent form  rather than referring to previous verbal explanations.  The consent form should provide a complete explanation of what the participant is agreeing to do in the study.
• Be aware of the needs of the participant.  Avoid using jargon and acronyms that the participant may not understand; make sure the reading comprehension level is appropriate.
• Do not use statements that make implicit demands on participants to participate , e.g., "You will enjoy and benefit from participating in this study."
• Prepare the consent forms in the standard format provided in the template,  with all headings addressed. Use the standard language provided on the template where appropriate.
• Please proofread the consent forms  for grammar and spelling errors.
• Do not use language that revokes a participant’s legal rights .  A consent form is not a legal document.
• Do not require the participants to sign consent to long statements written in first person , e.g., “I agree to participate in this research study.  I understand that the risks are minimal and that I will receive no benefits.  I know how to withdraw from this study.  I will receive $X in payment for participating.  I understand that if I withdraw from the study before my participation is complete, I will receive prorated payment according to the following schedule . . .  I agree not to hold the researchers liable for any injuries resulting from participation in this study. . .”   DO ask participants to sign consent to a simple agreement statement  at the end of the consent form:  “I agree to participate in the research study described above.”

UCL Research Ethics

• Advice on writing an information sheet and consent form

Writing a Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form

Recruitment documents help people make informed choices about whether to participate in a research study. Find out how to write a Participant Information Sheet, example forms and further guidance.

Writing a Participant Information Sheet

Participant Information Sheets must be designed to assist participants to make informed choices. Potential recruits must be given sufficient information to allow them to decide whether or not they want to take part. The process of obtaining consent and the accompanying documentation must be approved by a research ethics committee and, where only verbal consent to research is contemplated include consideration of an appropriate process for witnessing the consent.

Researchers must take the steps necessary to ensure that all participants in the research understand the process in which they are to be engaged, including why their participation is necessary, how it will be used, and how and to whom it will be reported so that the prospective participant can make an informed decision about whether they really do want to take part.

It is highly recommended that the information provided is presented on headed paper and is accurate, clear and simple so that someone with a reading age of 8 would understand the contents (use short words, sentences and paragraphs). The information should be specific to the proposed research and appropriate for the social and cultural context in which is it being given. It is important to avoid technical terms, jargon and abbreviations, bias, coercion or any inappropriate inducements.

What should the Participant Information Sheet include:

• A friendly invitation to participate.
• A brief and simple explanation of the purposes of the research and a statement explaining how the participant was chosen and how many other participants will be involved in the study.
• A statement that participation is voluntary; refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled; and the participant may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits.
• A thorough explanation of the expected duration of participation in the research and the procedures to be followed.
• A description of any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts and any benefits to the participant. For research involving more than minimal risk, an explanation as to whether any compensation or any medical treatments are available if injury occurs and, if so, what they consist of, or where further information may be obtained.
• A statement describing the extent, if any, to which confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained.
• It is considered good practice for researchers to debrief participants at the conclusion of the research and to provide them with copies of any reports or other publications arising from their participation.
• If appropriate, a statement indicating that the data might be used for additional or subsequent research.
• An explanation of who to contact for answers to pertinent questions about the research and the rights of the participant and who to contact in the event of a research-related injury to the participant.
• If applicable, a statement declaring that each researcher who may have access to children (aged under 18) or vulnerable adults has undergone a satisfactory criminal records check.
• Remember to thank your participant for considering taking part in the study and include a statement indicating that the research study has been approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee.

Language and layout

It is highly recommended that the information provided is presented on headed paper and is accurate, clear, and simple. The information should be specific to the proposed research and appropriate for the social and cultural context in which is it being given. It is important to avoid technical terms, jargon, and abbreviations, bias, coercion, or any inappropriate inducements.

The following points should be considered when writing an information sheet:

• Use clear, non-technical language. We recommend that you refer to the  Plain English Campaign
• Use appropriate language for the target audience. For example, consider the different ways needed to communicate with primary school children as opposed to their teachers, or people with expertise in the area of study as opposed to people with no such knowledge
• Divide the text into paragraphs for ease of reading
• Consider using sub-headings for clarity, such as questions and answers
• Make sure the font and font size are legible.

Ask someone else to review your information sheet before it is circulated.

• Template Participant Information Sheet  (Word)
• Template Consent Form  (Word)
• Guidance on obtaining consent from research participants online (for online and in-person study designs)

Authors: Dr Pippa Lally, Behavioural Science and Health, and Jack Hindley, Information Services Division, UCL

• Recording & Obtaining Consent

UCL Research Ethics Committee Guidance Note 2: Extract from Nuffield Council on Bioethics website

Page last updated: April 2023

Understanding Informed Consent Forms

The informed consent form puts you in control of your health decisions and protects your rights.

Before you join a cancer research study, you’ll receive an informed consent form to review, ask questions about, and sign. The form covers a description of the study’s purpose, procedures and safety measures researchers will follow, and what is expected of study participants. 

The form is part of the informed consent process. This process protects your rights. It also gives you control over your choice to take part in research.

Federal law requires that researchers give the informed consent form to potential participants. You will have a chance to ask questions about information you read in the form. Once you understand the study, you can choose if you want to sign the consent form and take part.

Getting comfortable with informed consent forms

Understanding a consent form is an important part of the informed consent process. All informed consent forms are different. But most forms will have the same kinds of information about the study divided into sections.  

Overview of study This section tells you: 

• what question researchers are hoping to answer with the study 
• the main potential risks and benefits of taking part in the study 
• your responsibilities as a participant  



The overview also describes the choices you have if you do not take part in the study. And it explains the reasons you might leave the study early. This section also lets you know that taking part is voluntary and you may leave the study at any time.

Study design This section describes:

• each study group
• what each group will be asked to do, including tests and procedures you will have and drugs you will take
• how many people will be in each group
• how long the study will last

Risks and benefits This section describes:

• all known potential risks and benefits of taking part in the study 
• the most common side effects
• how the study will help doctors learn about your disease

Cost This section explains the costs of taking part in a study. Insurance and the study sponsor should cover some expenses. But you might have others, such as the cost of travel to the trial site. Learn more about who pays for clinical trials .

Safety and Clinical Trials

Explore the many safety measures in place to help keep you safe during a trial or study.

Your rights This section covers your rights:

• if you are injured because of the study or neglect 
• to privacy when it comes to sharing your medical information 
• to leave the study at any time

How to get more information on the study This section provides ways to:

• learn more about the study
• learn more about your rights as a participant
• reach the study team

Signature As with most legal documents, informed consent forms require a signature. But it’s important to remember that you are not signing away your rights or binding yourself to the study. You may still leave the study at any time. If a participant is under 18 years of age, read about the children’s assent process . 

Sample informed consent form

Read a sample consent form to become familiar with the content and sections. Note: this form is for informational purposes only and does not represent a real study. Your form may have other sections, and may present the information in a different way.

Tips for reading informed consent forms

Amy Rose oversees the day-to-day operations of clinical research, including the informed consent process for potential research participants. She is the associate director in Clinical Research Services at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hillman Cancer Center.

If you are thinking about taking part in a clinical trial, Amy suggests that you: 

• Bring a friend or relative to the appointment when your study team discusses the study and informed consent form. 
• Take the form home . Read it in a comfortable place, take notes, and jot down questions for your doctor or study team. “You can highlight things and write down questions right on the consent form,” Amy said.  
• Ask a close friend or spouse to read the form so you can discuss it with them. Have them take notes too, and compare your understanding. Reviewing it with your primary care provider can also be helpful, Amy said. 
• Don’t be afraid to ask questions . Amy said she and other medical professionals don’t always realize when they aren’t explaining things clearly. They may be in a rush or too steeped in the language of medicine. 
• You can decide not to take part before or after you sign the form. “We always tell people their participation is completely voluntary,” Amy said. “You do not have to continue just because you sign this consent today.” 

The informed consent process does not end when you sign a form and decide to take part. Your doctor and study team will keep you updated about the study so you can continue to make informed decisions. 

Have questions about informed consent?

Connect with our cancer information specialists.

Phone: 1-800-4-CANCER   Chat: LiveHelp Email:   [email protected]

Available Monday–Friday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. ET.

• Introduction to Genomics
• Educational Resources
• Policy Issues in Genomics
• The Human Genome Project
• Funding Opportunities
• Funded Programs & Projects
• Division and Program Directors
• Scientific Program Analysts
• Contact by Research Area
• News & Events
• Research Areas
• Research investigators
• Research Projects
• Clinical Research
• Data Tools & Resources
• Genomics & Medicine
• Family Health History
• For Patients & Families
• For Health Professionals
• Jobs at NHGRI
• Training at NHGRI
• Funding for Research Training
• Professional Development Programs
• NHGRI Culture
• Social Media
• Broadcast Media
• Image Gallery
• Press Resources
• Organization
• NHGRI Director
• Mission & Vision
• Policies & Guidance
• Institute Advisors
• Strategic Vision
• Leadership Initiatives
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Partner with NHGRI
• Staff Search

Sample Consent Forms

These consent forms were used in various NIH-funded research projects and have been approved by the relevant local IRBs. These completed forms are meant to complement the sample language found in the other sections. They are not provided as guidance or templates promoted by NHGRI, but as references to inform investigators and IRBs considering these issues. Consent forms should be tailored to each individual study.

Additional Resources

• The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health maintains sample consent clauses relevant to genomics research projects that may be helpful when developing consent forms.  
• The NIH Office of Human Subjects Research Protections has created a useful list of consent templates for NIH Intramural Researchers . These include consent templates that have been updated to comply with the Revised Common Rule, as well as older forms that might be useful in crafting consent language.   Note: these templates are not specifically for genomics projects .

Related Content

Last updated: March 16, 2022

Sample consent and permission forms

General consent form to participate in research (DOC)

Two stage project consent form (DOC)

Parent permission form for research with child (DOC)

Child assent form (DOC)

Multiple consent form including audio-recording and quotations (DOC)

Photo and video consent form (DOC)

Video-recording consent form (DOC)

Re-contact agreement form (DOC)

Post-debriefing consent form (DOC)

Medical Research: Forms & Consent Templates

Main navigation.

This section contains all of the forms and consent templates that apply to investigators from:     • School of Medicine (SoM)    • Veteran's Affairs (VA) Hospital 

*Please note that when creating a protocol for IRB submission, these investigators need to select the Medical eProtocol Application category.

If you have questions or are having trouble accessing these forms, please contact IRB Education ( email or call 650-724-7141).

The consent/assent form should be in a language that is understandable to someone without a medical or scientific background. Please use the Microsoft Readability Statistics tool as needed when writing your consent form.

See  consent template updates  for recent changes.

Other Forms:

Eprotocol forms:.

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 33, Issue 5
• Equitable and accessible informed healthcare consent process for people with intellectual disability: a systematic literature review
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8498-7329 Manjekah Dunn 1 , 2 ,
• Iva Strnadová 3 , 4 , 5 ,
• Jackie Leach Scully 4 ,
• Jennifer Hansen 3 ,
• Julie Loblinzk 3 , 5 ,
• Skie Sarfaraz 5 ,
• Chloe Molnar 1 ,
• Elizabeth Emma Palmer 1 , 2
• 1 Faculty of Medicine & Health , University of New South Wales , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
• 2 The Sydney Children's Hospitals Network , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
• 3 School of Education , University of New South Wales , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
• 4 Disability Innovation Institute , University of New South Wales , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
• 5 Self Advocacy Sydney , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
• Correspondence to Dr Manjekah Dunn, Paediatrics & Child Health, University of New South Wales Medicine & Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; manjekah.dunn{at}unsw.edu.au

Objective To identify factors acting as barriers or enablers to the process of healthcare consent for people with intellectual disability and to understand how to make this process equitable and accessible.

Data sources Databases: Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and CINAHL. Additional articles were obtained from an ancestral search and hand-searching three journals.

Eligibility criteria Peer-reviewed original research about the consent process for healthcare interventions, published after 1990, involving adult participants with intellectual disability.

Synthesis of results Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify factors affecting informed consent. The findings were reviewed by co-researchers with intellectual disability to ensure they reflected lived experiences, and an easy read summary was created.

Results Twenty-three studies were included (1999 to 2020), with a mix of qualitative (n=14), quantitative (n=6) and mixed-methods (n=3) studies. Participant numbers ranged from 9 to 604 people (median 21) and included people with intellectual disability, health professionals, carers and support people, and others working with people with intellectual disability. Six themes were identified: (1) health professionals’ attitudes and lack of education, (2) inadequate accessible health information, (3) involvement of support people, (4) systemic constraints, (5) person-centred informed consent and (6) effective communication between health professionals and patients. Themes were barriers (themes 1, 2 and 4), enablers (themes 5 and 6) or both (theme 3).

Conclusions Multiple reasons contribute to poor consent practices for people with intellectual disability in current health systems. Recommendations include addressing health professionals’ attitudes and lack of education in informed consent with clinician training, the co-production of accessible information resources and further inclusive research into informed consent for people with intellectual disability.

PROSPERO registration CRD42021290548.

• Decision making
• Healthcare quality improvement
• Patient-centred care
• Quality improvement
• Standards of care

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Additional data and materials such as data collection forms, data extraction and analysis templates and QualSyst assessment data can be obtained by contacting the corresponding author.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016113

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

What is already known on this topic

People with intellectual disability are frequently excluded from decision-making processes and not provided equal opportunity for informed consent, despite protections outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

People with intellectual disability have the capacity and desire to make informed medical decisions, which can improve their well-being, health satisfaction and health outcomes.

What this review study adds

Health professionals lack adequate training in valid informed consent and making reasonable adjustments for people with intellectual disability, and continue to perpetuate assumptions of incapacity.

Health information provided to people with intellectual disability is often inaccessible and insufficient for them to make informed decisions about healthcare.

The role of support people, systemic constraints, a person-centred approach and ineffective healthcare communication also affect informed consent.

How this review might affect research, practice or policy

Health professionals need additional training on how to provide a valid informed consent process for people with intellectual disability, specifically in using accessible health information, making reasonable adjustments (e.g., longer/multiple appointments, options of a support person attending or not, using plain English), involving the individual in discussions, and communicating effectively with them.

Inclusive research is needed to hear the voices and opinions of people with intellectual disability about healthcare decision-making and about informed consent practices in specific healthcare settings.

Introduction

Approximately 1% of the world’s population have intellectual disability. 1 Intellectual disability is medically defined as a group of neurodevelopmental conditions beginning in childhood, with below average cognitive functioning and adaptive behaviour, including limitations in conceptual, social and practical skills. 2 People with intellectual disability prefer an alternative strength-based definition, reflected in the comment by Robert Strike OAM (Order of Australia Medal): ‘We can learn if the way of teaching matches how the person learns’, 3 reinforcing the importance of providing information tailored to the needs of a person with intellectual disability. A diagnosis of intellectual disability is associated with significant disparities in health outcomes. 4–7 Person-centred decision-making and better communication have been shown to improve patient satisfaction, 8 9 the physician–patient relationship 10 and overall health outcomes 11 for the wider population. Ensuring people with intellectual disability experience informed decision-making and accessible healthcare can help address the ongoing health disparities and facilitate equal access to healthcare.

Bodily autonomy is an individual’s power and agency to make decisions about their own body. 12 Informed consent for healthcare enables a person to practice bodily autonomy and is protected, for example, by the National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards (Australia), 13 Mental Capacity Act (UK) 14 and the Joint Commission Standards (USA). 15 In this article, we define informed consent according to three requirements: (1) the person is provided with information they understand, (2) the decision is free of coercion and (3) the person must have capacity. 16 For informed consent to be valid, this process must be suited to the individual’s needs so that they can understand and communicate effectively. Capacity is the ability to give informed consent for a medical intervention, 17 18 and the Mental Capacity Act outlines that ‘a person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity’ and that incapacity can only be established if ‘all practicable steps’ to support capacity have been attempted without success. 14 These assumptions of capacity are also decision-specific, meaning an individual’s ability to consent can change depending on the situation, the choice itself and other factors. 17

Systemic issues with healthcare delivery systems have resulted in access barriers for people with intellectual disability, 19 despite the disability discrimination legislation in many countries who are signatories to the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 20 Patients with intellectual disability are not provided the reasonable adjustments that would enable them to give informed consent for medical procedures or interventions, 21 22 despite evidence that many people with intellectual disability have both the capacity and the desire to make their own healthcare decisions. 21 23

To support people with intellectual disability to make independent health decisions, an equitable and accessible informed consent process is needed. 24 However, current health systems have consistently failed to provide this. 21 25 To address this gap, we must first understand the factors that contribute to inequitable and inaccessible consent. To the best of our knowledge, the only current review of informed consent for people with intellectual disability is an integrative review by Goldsmith et al . 26 Many of the included articles focused on assessment of capacity 27–29 and research consent. 30–32 The review’s conclusion supported the functional approach to assess capacity, with minimal focus on how the informed consent processes can be improved. More recently, there has been a move towards ensuring that the consent process is accessible for all individuals, including elderly patients 33 and people with aphasia. 34 However, there remains a paucity of literature about the informed consent process for people with intellectual disability, with no systematic reviews summarising the factors influencing the healthcare consent process for people with intellectual disability.

To identify barriers to and enablers of the informed healthcare consent process for people with intellectual disability, and to understand how this can be made equitable and accessible.

A systematic literature review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) systematic literature review protocol. 35 The PRISMA 2020 checklist 36 and ENhancing Transparency in REporting the synthesis of Qualitative research (ENTREQ) reporting guidelines were also followed. 37 The full study protocol is included in online supplemental appendix 1 .

Supplemental material

No patients or members of the public were involved in this research for this manuscript.

Search strategy

A search strategy was developed to identify articles about intellectual disability, consent and healthcare interventions, described in online supplemental appendix 2 . Multiple databases were searched for articles published between January 1990 to January 2022 (Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and CINAHL). These databases include healthcare and psychology databases that best capture relevant literature on this topic, including medical, nursing, social sciences and bioethical literature. The search was limited to studies published from 1990 as understandings of consent have changed since then. 38 39 This yielded 4853 unique papers which were imported into Covidence, a specialised programme for conducting systematic reviews. 40

Study selection

Citation screening by abstract and titles was completed by two independent researchers (MD and EEP). Included articles had to:

Examine the informed consent process for a healthcare intervention for people with intellectual disability.

Have collected more than 50% of its data from relevant stakeholders, including adults with intellectual disability, families or carers of a person with intellectual disability, and professionals who engage with people with intellectual disability.

Report empirical data from primary research methodology.

Be published in a peer-reviewed journal after January 1990.

Be available in English.

Full text screening was completed by two independent researchers (MD and EEP). Articles were excluded if consent was only briefly discussed or if it focused on consent for research, capacity assessment, or participant knowledge or comprehension. Any conflicts were resolved through discussion with an independent third researcher (IS).

Additional studies were identified through an ancestral search and by hand-searching three major journals relevant to intellectual disability research. Journals were selected if they had published more than one included article for this review or in previous literature reviews conducted by the research team.

Quality assessment

Two independent researchers (MD and IS) assessed study quality with the QualSyst tool, 41 which can assess both qualitative and quantitative research papers. After evaluating the distribution of scores, a threshold value of 55% was used, as suggested by QualSyst 41 to exclude poor-quality studies but capture enough studies overall. Any conflicts between the quality assessment scores were resolved by a third researcher (EEP). For mixed-method studies, both qualitative and quantitative quality scores were calculated, and the higher value used.

Data collection

Two independent researchers (MD and JH) reviewed each study and extracted relevant details, including study size, participant demographics, year, country of publication, study design, data analysis and major outcomes reported. Researchers used standardised data collection forms designed, with input from senior researchers with expertise in qualitative research (IS and EEP), to extract data relevant to the review’s research aims. The form was piloted on one study, and a second iteration made based on feedback. These forms captured data on study design, methods, participants, any factors affecting the process of informed consent and study limitations. Data included descriptions and paragraphs outlining key findings, the healthcare context, verbatim participant quotes and any quantitative analyses or statistics. Missing or unclear data were noted.

Data analysis

A pilot literature search showed significant heterogeneity in methodology of studies, limiting the applicability of traditional quantitative analysis (ie, meta-analysis). Instead, inductive thematic analysis was chosen as an alternative methodology 42 43 that has been used in recent systematic reviews examining barriers and enablers of other health processes. 44 45 The six-phase approach described by Braun and Clarke was used. 46 47 A researcher (MD) independently coded the extracted data of each study line-by-line, with subsequent data grouped into pre-existing codes or new concepts when necessary. Codes were reviewed iteratively and grouped into categories, subthemes and themes framed around the research question. Another independent researcher (JH) collated and analysed the data on study demographics, methods and limitations. The themes were reviewed by two senior researchers (EEP and IS).

Qualitative methods of effect size calculations have been described in the literature, 48 49 which was captured in this review by the number of studies that identified each subtheme, with an assigned frequency rating to compare their relative significance. Subthemes were given a frequency rating of A, B, C or D if they were identified by >10, 7–9, 4–6 or <3 articles, respectively. The overall significance of each theme was estimated by the number of studies that mentioned it and the GRADE framework, a stepwise approach to quality assessment using a four-tier rating system. Each study was evaluated for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias. 50 51 Study sensitivity was assessed by counting the number of distinct subthemes included. 52 The quality of findings was designated high, moderate or low depending on the frequency ratings, the QualSyst score and the GRADE scores of studies supporting the finding. Finally, the relative contributions of each study were evaluated by the number of subthemes described, guided by previously reported methods for qualitative reviews. 52

Co-research

The findings were reviewed by two co-researchers with intellectual disability (JL and SS), with over 30 years combined experience as members and employees of a self-advocacy organisation. Guidance on the findings and an easy read summary was produced in line with best-practice inclusive research 53 54 over multiple discussions. Input from two health professional researchers (MD and EEP) provided data triangulation and sense-checking of findings.

Twenty-three articles were identified ( figure 1 ): 14 qualitative, 6 quantitative and 3 mixed-methods. Two papers included the same population of study participants: McCarthy 55 and McCarthy, 56 but had different research questions. Fovargue et al 57 was excluded due to a quality score of 35%. Common quality limitations were a lack of verification procedures to establish credibility and limited researcher reflexivity. No studies were excluded due to language requirements (as all were in English) or age restrictions (all studies had majority adult participants).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

PRISMA 2020 flowchart for the systematic review. 36

Studies were published from 1999 to 2020 and involved participant populations from the UK (n=18), USA (n=3), Sweden (n=1) and Ireland (n=1). Participant numbers ranged from 9 to 604 (median 21), and participants included people with intellectual disability (n=817), health professionals (n=272), carers and support people (n=48), and other professionals that work with people with intellectual disability (n=137, community service agency directors, social workers, administrative staff and care home staff). Ages of participants ranged from 8 to 84 years, though only Aman et al 58 included participants <18 years of age. This study was included as the article states very few children were included. Studies examined consent in different contexts, including contraception and sexual health (6/23 articles), 58–60 medications (5/23 articles), 58–62 emergency healthcare, 63 cervical screening, 64 community referrals, 58–61 65 mental health, 66 hydrotherapy, 64 blood collection 67 and broad decision-making consent without a specific context. 65 68–71 A detailed breakdown of each study is included in online supplemental appendix 3 .

Six major themes were identified from the studies, summarised in figure 2 . An overview of included studies showing study sensitivity, effect size, QualSyst and GRADE scores is given in online supplemental appendix 4 . Studies with higher QualSyst and GRADE scores contributed more to this review’s findings and tended to include more subthemes; specifically, Rogers et al , 66 Sowney and Barr, 63 Höglund and Larsson, 72 and McCarthy 55 and McCarthy. 56 Figure 3 gives the easy read version of theme 1, with the full easy read summary in online supplemental appendix 5 .

Summary of the identified six themes and subthemes.

Theme 1 of the easy read summary.

Theme 1—Health professionals’ attitudes and lack of education about informed consent

Health professionals’ attitudes and practices were frequently (18/21) identified as factors affecting the informed consent process, with substantial evidence supporting this theme. Studies noted the lack of training for health professionals in supporting informed consent for people with intellectual disability, their desire for further education, and stereotypes and discrimination perpetuated by health professionals.

Lack of health professional education on informed consent and disability discrimination legislation

Multiple studies reported inconsistent informed consent practices, for various reasons: some reported that health professionals ‘forgot’ to or ‘did not realise consent was necessary’, 63 73 but inconsistent consent practices were also attributed to healthcare providers’ unfamiliarity with consent guidelines and poor education on this topic. Carlson et al 73 reported that only 44% of general practitioners (GPs) were aware of consent guidelines, and there was the misconception that consent was unnecessary for people with intellectual disability. Similarly, studies of psychologists 66 and nurses 63 found that many were unfamiliar with their obligations to obtain consent, despite the existence of anti-discrimination legislation. People with intellectual disability describe feeling discriminated against by health professionals, reflected in comments such as ‘I can tell, my doctor just thinks I’m stupid – I'm nothing to him’. 74 Poor consent practices by health professionals were observed in Goldsmith et al , 67 while health professionals surveyed by McCarthy 56 were unaware of their responsibility to provide accessible health information to women with intellectual disability. Improving health professional education and training was suggested by multiple studies as a way to remove this barrier. 63 65–67 69 73

Lack of training on best practices for health professions caring for people with intellectual disability

A lack of training in caring for and communicating with people with intellectual disability was also described by midwives, 72 psychologists, 66 nurses, 63 pharmacists 61 and GPs. 56 72 75 Health professionals lacked knowledge about best practice approaches to providing equitable healthcare consent processes through reasonable adjustments such as accessible health information, 56 60 66 longer appointments times, 60 72 simple English 62 67 and flexible approaches to patient needs. 63 72

Health professionals’ stereotyping and assumptions of incapacity

Underlying stereotypes contributed to some health professionals’ (including nurses, 63 GPs 56 and physiotherapists 64 ) belief that people with intellectual disability lack capacity and therefore, do not require opportunities for informed consent. 56 64 In a survey of professionals referring people with intellectual disability to a disability service, the second most common reason for not obtaining consent was ‘patient unable to understand’. 73

Proxy consent as an inappropriate alternative

People with intellectual disability are rarely the final decision-maker in their medical choices, with many health providers seeking proxy consent from carers, support workers and family members, despite its legal invalidity. In McCarthy’s study (2010), 18/23 women with intellectual disability said the decision to start contraception was made by someone else. Many GPs appeared unaware that proxy consent is invalid in the UK. 56 Similar reports came from people with intellectual disability, 55 56 60 64 69 76 health professionals (nurses, doctors, allied health, psychologists), 56 63 64 66 77 support people 64 77 and non-medical professionals, 65 73 and capacity was rarely documented. 56 62 77

Exclusion of people with intellectual disability from decision-making discussions

Studies described instances where health professionals made decisions for their patients with intellectual disability or coerced patients into a choice. 55 72 74 76 77 In Ledger et al 77 , only 62% of women with intellectual disability were involved in the discussion about contraception, and only 38% made the final decision, and others stated in Wiseman and Ferrie 74 : ‘I was not given the opportunity to explore the different options. I was told what one I should take’. Three papers outlined instances where the choices of people with intellectual disability were ignored despite possessing capacity 65 66 69 and when a procedure continued despite them withdrawing consent. 69

Theme 2—Inadequate accessible health information

Lack of accessible health information.

The lack of accessible health information was the most frequently identified subtheme (16/23 studies). Some studies reported that health professionals provided information to carers instead, 60 avoided providing easy read information due to concerns about ‘offending’ patients 75 or only provided verbal information. 56 67 Informed consent was supported when health professionals recognised the importance of providing medical information 64 and when it was provided in an accessible format. 60 Alternative approaches to health information were explored, including virtual reality 68 and in-person education sessions, 59 with varying results. Overall, the need to provide information in different formats tailored to an individual’s communication needs, rather than a ‘one size fits all’ approach, was emphasised by both people with intellectual disability 60 and health professionals. 66

Insufficient information provided

Studies described situations where insufficient information was provided to people with intellectual disability to make informed decisions. For example, some people felt the information from their GP was often too basic to be helpful (Fish et al 60 ) and wanted additional information on consent forms (Rose et al 78 ).

Theme 3—The involvement of support people

Support people (including carers, family members and group home staff) were identified in 11 articles as both enablers of and barriers to informed consent. The antagonistic nature of these findings and lower frequency of subthemes are reflected in the lower quality assessments of evidence.

Support people facilitated communication with health professionals

Some studies reported carers bridging communication barriers with health to support informed consent. 63 64 McCarthy 56 found 21/23 of women with intellectual disability preferred to see doctors with a support person due to perceived benefits: ‘Sometimes I don’t understand it, so they have to explain it to my carer, so they can explain it to me easier’. Most GPs in this study (93%) also agreed that support people aided communication.

Support people helped people with intellectual disability make decisions

By advocating for people with intellectual disability, carers encouraged decision-making, 64 74 provided health information, 74 77 emotional support 76 and assisted with reading or remembering health information. 55 58 76 Some people with intellectual disability explicitly appreciated their support person’s involvement, 60 such as in McCarthy’s 55 study where 18/23 participants felt supported and safer when a support person was involved.

Support people impeded individual autonomy

The study by Wiseman and Ferrie 74 found that while younger participants with intellectual disability felt family members empowered their decision-making, older women felt family members impaired their ability to give informed consent. This was reflected in interviews with carers who questioned the capacity of the person with intellectual disability they supported and stated they would guide them to pick the ‘best choice’ or even over-ride their choices. 64 Studies of psychologists and community service directors described instances where the decision of family or carers was prioritised over the wishes of the person with intellectual disability. 65 66 Some women with intellectual disability in McCarthy’s studies (2010, 2009) 55 56 appeared to have been coerced into using contraception by parental pressures or fear of losing group home support.

Theme 4—Systemic constraints within healthcare systems

Time restraints affect informed consent and accessible healthcare.

Resource limitations create time constraints that impair the consent process and have been identified as a barrier by psychologists, 66 GPs, 56 hospital nurses 63 and community disability workers. 73 Rogers et al 66 highlighted that a personalised approach that could improve informed decision-making is restricted by inflexible medical models. Only two studies described flexible patient-centred approaches to consent. 60 72 A survey of primary care practices in 2007 reported that most did not modify their cervical screening information for patients with intellectual disability because it was not practical. 75

Inflexible models of consent

Both people with intellectual disability 76 and health professionals 66 recognised that consent is traditionally obtained through one-off interactions prior to an intervention. Yet, for people with intellectual disability, consent should ideally be an ongoing process that begins before an appointment and continues between subsequent ones. Other studies have tended to describe one-off interactions where decision-making was not revisited at subsequent appointments. 56 60 72 76

Lack of systemic supports

In one survey, self-advocates highlighted a lack of information on medication for people with intellectual disability and suggested a telephone helpline and a centralised source of information to support consent. 60 Health professionals also want greater systemic support, such as a health professional specialised in intellectual disability care to support other staff, 72 or a pharmacist specifically to help patients with intellectual disability. 61 Studies highlighted a lack of guidelines about healthcare needs of people with intellectual disabilities such as contraceptive counselling 72 or primary care. 75

Theme 5—Person-centred informed consent

Ten studies identified factors related to a person-centred approach to informed consent, grouped below into three subthemes. Health professionals should tailor their practice when obtaining informed consent from people with intellectual disability by considering how these subthemes relate to the individual. Each subtheme was described five times in the literature with a relative frequency rating of ‘C’, contributing to overall lower quality scores.

Previous experience with decision-making

Arscott et al 71 found that the ability of people with intellectual disability to consent changed with their verbal and memory skills and in different clinical vignettes, supporting the view of ‘functional’ capacity specific to the context of the medical decision. Although previous experiences with decision-making did not influence informed consent in this paper, other studies suggest that people with intellectual disability accustomed to independent decision-making were more able to make informed medical decisions, 66 70 and those who live independently were more likely to make independent healthcare decisions. 56 Health professionals should be aware that their patients with intellectual disability will have variable experience with decision-making and provide individualised support to meet their needs.

Variable awareness about healthcare rights

Consent processes should be tailored to the health literacy of patients, including emphasising available choices and the option to refuse treatment. In some studies, medical decisions were not presented to people with intellectual disability as a choice, 64 and people with intellectual disability were not informed of their legal right to accessible health information. 56

Power differences and acquiescence

Acquiescence by people with intellectual disability due to common and repeated experiences of trauma—that is, their tendency to agree with suggestions made by carers and health professionals, often to avoid upsetting others—was identified as an ongoing barrier. In McCarthy’s (2009) interviews with women with intellectual disability, some participants implicitly rejected the idea that they might make their own healthcare decisions: ‘They’re the carers, they have responsibility for me’. Others appeared to have made decisions to appease their carers: ‘I have the jab (contraceptive injection) so I can’t be blamed for getting pregnant’. 55 Two studies highlighted that health professionals need to be mindful of power imbalances when discussing consent with people with intellectual disability to ensure the choices are truly autonomous. 61 66

Theme 6—Effective communication between health professionals and patients

Implementation of reasonable adjustments for verbal and written information.

Simple language was always preferred by people with intellectual disability. 60 67 Other communication aids used in decision-making included repetition, short sentences, models, pictures and easy read brochures. 72 Another reasonable adjustment is providing the opportunity to ask questions, which women with intellectual disability in McCarthy’s (2009) study reported did not occur. 55

Tailored communication methods including non-verbal communication

Midwives noted that continuity of care allows them to develop rapport and understand the communication preferences of people with intellectual disability. 72 This is not always possible; for emergency nurses, the lack of background information about patients with intellectual disability made it challenging to understand their communication preferences. 63 The use of non-verbal communication, such as body language, was noted as underutilised 62 66 and people with intellectual disability supported the use of hearing loops, braille and sign language. 60

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review investigating the barriers and enablers of the informed consent process for healthcare procedures for people with intellectual disability. The integrative review by Goldsmith et al 26 examined capacity assessment and shares only three articles with this systematic review. 69 71 73 Since the 2000s, there has been a paradigm shift in which capacity is no longer considered a fixed ability that only some individuals possess 38 39 but instead as ‘functional’: a flexible ability that changes over time and in different contexts, 79 reflected in Goldsmith’s review. An individual’s capacity can be supported through various measures, including how information is communicated and how the decision-making process is approached. 18 80 By recognising the barriers and enablers identified in this review, physicians can help ensure the consent process for their patients with intellectual disability is both valid and truly informed. This review has highlighted the problems of inaccessible health information, insufficient clinical education on how to make reasonable adjustments and lack of person-centred trauma-informed care.

Recommendations

Health professionals require training in the informed consent process for people with intellectual disability, particularly in effective and respectful communication, reasonable adjustments and trauma-informed care. Reasonable adjustments include offering longer or multiple appointments, using accessible resources (such as easy read information or shared decision-making tools) and allowing patient choices (such as to record a consultation or involve a support person). Co-researchers reported that many people with intellectual disability prefer to go without a support person because they find it difficult to challenge their decisions and feel ignored if the health professional only talks to the support person. People with intellectual disability also feel they cannot seek second opinions before making medical decisions or feel pressured to provide consent, raising the possibility of coercion. These experiences contribute to healthcare trauma. Co-researchers raised the importance of building rapport with the person with intellectual disability and of making reasonable adjustments, such as actively advocating for the person’s autonomy, clearly stating all options including the choice to refuse treatment, providing opportunities to contribute to discussions and multiple appointments to ask questions and understand information. They felt that without these efforts to support consent, health professionals can reinforce traumatic healthcare experiences for people with intellectual disability. Co-researchers noted instances where choices were made by doctors without discussion and where they were only given a choice after requesting one and expressed concern that these barriers are greater for those with higher support needs.

Co-researchers showed how these experiences contributed to mistrust of health professionals and poorer health outcomes. In one situation, a co-researcher was not informed of a medication’s withdrawal effects, resulting in significant side-effects when it was ceased. Many people with intellectual disability describe a poor relationship with their health professionals, finding it difficult to trust health information provided due to previous traumatic experiences of disrespect, coercion, lack of choice and inadequate support. Many feel they cannot speak up due to the power imbalance and fear of retaliation. Poor consent practices and lack of reasonable adjustments directly harm therapeutic alliances by reducing trust, contribute to healthcare trauma and lead to poorer health outcomes for people with intellectual disability.

Additional education and training for health professionals is urgently needed in the areas of informed consent, reasonable adjustments and effective communication with people with intellectual disability. The experiences of health professionals within the research team confirmed that there is limited training in providing high-quality healthcare for people with intellectual disability, including reasonable adjustments and accessible health information. Co-researchers also suggested that education should be provided to carers and support people to help them better advocate for people with intellectual disability.

Health information should be provided in a multimodal format, including written easy read information. Many countries have regulation protecting the right to accessible health information and communication support to make an informed choice, such as UK’s Accessible Information Standard, 81 and Australia’s Charter of Health Care Rights, 24 yet these are rarely observed. Steps to facilitate this include routinely asking patients about information requirements, system alerts for an individual’s needs or routinely providing reasonable adjustments. 82 Co-researchers agreed that there is a lack of accessible health information, particularly about medications, and that diagrams and illustrations are underutilised. There is a critical need for more inclusive and accessible resources to help health professionals support informed consent in a safe and high-quality health system. These resources should be created through methods of inclusive research, such as co-production, actively involving people with intellectual disability in the planning, creation, and feedback process. 53

Strengths and limitations

This systematic review involved two co-researchers with intellectual disability in sense-checking findings and co-creating the easy read summary. Two co-authors who are health professionals provided additional sense-checking of findings from a different stakeholder perspective. In future research, this could be extended by involving people with intellectual disability in the design and planning of the study as per recommendations for best-practice inclusive research. 53 83

The current literature is limited by low use of inclusive research practices in research involving people with intellectual disability, increasing vulnerability to external biases (eg, inaccessible questionnaires, involvement of carers in data collection, overcompliance or acquiescence and absence of researcher reflexivity). Advisory groups or co-research with people with intellectual disability were only used in five studies. 58 60 68 74 76 Other limitations include unclear selection criteria, low sample sizes, missing data, using gatekeepers in patient selection and predominance of UK-based studies—increasing the risk of bias and reducing transferability. Nine studies (out of 15 involving people with intellectual disability) explicitly excluded those with severe or profound intellectual disability, reflecting a selection bias; only one study specifically focused on people with intellectual disability with higher support needs. Studies were limited to a few healthcare contexts, with a focus on consent about sexual health, contraception and medications.

The heterogeneity and qualitative nature of studies made it challenging to apply traditional meta-analysis. However, to promote consistency in qualitative research, the PRISMA and ENTREQ guidelines were followed. 36 37 Although no meta-analyses occurred, the duplication of study populations in McCarthy 2009 and 2010 likely contributed to increased significance of findings reported in both studies. Most included studies (13/23) were published over 10 years ago, reducing the current relevance of this review’s findings. Nonetheless, the major findings reflect underlying systemic issues within the health system, which are unlikely to have been resolved since the articles were published, as the just-released final report of the Australian Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability highlights. 84 There is an urgent need for more inclusive studies to explore the recommendations and preferences of people with intellectual disability about healthcare choices.

Informed consent processes for people with intellectual disability should include accessible information and reasonable adjustments, be tailored to individuals’ needs and comply with consent and disability legislation. Resources, guidelines and healthcare education are needed and should cover how to involve carers and support people, address systemic healthcare problems, promote a person-centred approach and ensure effective communication. These resources and future research must use principles of inclusive co-production—involving people with intellectual disability at all stages. Additionally, research is needed on people with higher support needs and in specific contexts where informed consent is vital but under-researched, such as cancer screening, palliative care, prenatal and newborn screening, surgical procedures, genetic medicine and advanced therapeutics such as gene-based therapies.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

• Maulik PK ,
• Mascarenhas MN ,
• Mathers CD , et al
• World Health Organisation
• Council for Intellectual Disability
• Emerson E ,
• Shogren KA ,
• Wehmeyer ML ,
• Reese RM , et al
• Cordasco KM
• Hallock JL ,
• Jordens CFC ,
• McGrath C , et al
• Brenner LH ,
• Brenner AT ,
• United Nations Population Fund
• Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care
• The Joint Commission
• Beauchamp TL ,
• Childress JF
• New South Wales Attorney General
• United Nations General Assembly
• Strnadová I ,
• Loblinzk J ,
• Scully JL , et al
• MacPhail C ,
• McKay K , et al
• Keywood K ,
• Fovargue S ,
• Goldsmith L ,
• Skirton H ,
• Cash J , et al
• Morris CD ,
• Niederbuhl JM ,
• Arscott K ,
• Fisher CB ,
• Davidson PW , et al
• Giampieri M
• Shamseer L ,
• Clarke M , et al
• McKenzie JE ,
• Bossuyt PM , et al
• Flemming K ,
• McInnes E , et al
• Appelbaum PS
• ↵ Covidence systematic review software . Melbourne, Australia ,
• Proudfoot K
• Papadopoulos I ,
• Koulouglioti C ,
• Lazzarino R , et al
• Onwuegbuzie AJ
• BMJ Best Practice
• Guyatt GH ,
• Vist GE , et al
• Garcia-Lee B
• Brimblecombe J , et al
• Benson BA ,
• Farmer CA , et al
• Ferguson L ,
• Graham YNH ,
• Gerrard D ,
• Laight S , et al
• Huneke NTM ,
• Halder N , et al
• Ferguson M ,
• Jarrett D ,
• McGuire BE , et al
• Woodward V ,
• Jackson L , et al
• Conboy-Hill S ,
• Leafman J ,
• Nehrenz GM , et al
• Höglund B ,
• Carlson T ,
• English S , et al
• Wiseman P ,
• Walmsley J ,
• Tilley E , et al
• Khatkar HS , et al
• Holland AJ , et al
• Beauchamp TL
• England National Health Service
• National Health Service England
• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability

Supplementary materials

Supplementary data.

This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

• Data supplement 1
• Data supplement 2
• Data supplement 3
• Data supplement 4
• Data supplement 5

Contributors MD, EEP and IS conceived the idea for the systematic review. MD drafted the search strategy which was refined by EEP and IS. MD and EEP completed article screening. MD and IS completed quality assessments of included articles. MD and JH completed data extraction. MD drafted the original manuscript. JL and SS were co-researchers who sense-checked findings and were consulted to formulate dissemination plans. JL and SS co-produced the easy read summary with MD, CM, JH, EEP and IS. MD, JLS, EEP and IS reviewed manuscript wording. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript and approved it for publication. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted. MD is the guarantor responsible for the overall content of this manuscript.

Funding This systematic literature review was funded by the National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Targeted Call for Research (TCR) into Improving health of people with intellectual disability. Research grant title "GeneEQUAL: equitable and accessible genomic healthcare for people with intellectual disability". NHMRC application ID: 2022/GNT2015753.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Linked Articles

• Editorial It is up to healthcare professionals to talk to us in a way that we can understand: informed consent processes in people with an intellectual disability Jonathon Ding Richard Keagan-Bull Irene Tuffrey-Wijne BMJ Quality & Safety 2024; 33 277-279 Published Online First: 30 Jan 2024. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016830

Read the full text or download the PDF: