Optimized Informed Consent for Psychotherapy: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Informed consent is a legal and ethical prerequisite for psychotherapy. However, in clinical practice, consistent strategies to obtain informed consent are scarce. Inconsistencies exist regarding the overall validity of informed consent for psychotherapy as well as the disclosure of potential mechanisms and negative effects, the latter posing a moral dilemma between patient autonomy and nonmaleficence. OBJECTIVE: This protocol describes a randomized controlled web-based trial aiming to investigate the efficacy of a one-session optimized informed consent consultation. METHODS: The optimized informed consent consultation was developed to provide information on the setting, efficacy, mechanisms, and negative effects via expectation management and shared decision-making techniques. A total of 122 participants with an indication for psychotherapy will be recruited. Participants will take part in a baseline assessment, including a structured clinical interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-fifth edition (DSM-5) disorders. Eligible participants will be randomly assigned either to a control group receiving an information brochure about psychotherapy as treatment as usual (n=61) or to an intervention group receiving treatment as usual and the optimized informed consent consultation (n=61). Potential treatment effects will be measured after the treatment via interview and patient self-report and at 2 weeks and 3 months follow-up via web-based questionnaires. Treatment expectation is the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes include the capacity to consent, decisional conflict, autonomous treatment motivation, adherence intention, and side-effect expectations. RESULTS: This trial received a positive ethics vote by the local ethics committee of the Center for Psychosocial Medicine, University-Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany on April 1, 2021, and was prospectively registered on June 17, 2021. The first participant was enrolled in the study on August 5, 2021. We expect to complete data collection in December 2022. After data analysis within the first quarter of 2023, the results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals in summer 2023. CONCLUSIONS: If effective, the optimized informed consent consultation might not only constitute an innovative clinical tool to meet the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent but also strengthen the contributing factors of psychotherapy outcome, while minimizing nocebo effects and fostering shared decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PsychArchives; http://dx.doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.4929. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/39843.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.072 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.134 | 0.021 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".