ADHDSpark BATIRNCT06378281
Testing a New Method to Improve Informed Consent in Prison Research
A study testing Modified teach-to-goal informed consent in people with ADHD, run by Stéphanie Baggio at 2 sites in Switzerland.
Trial summary
Understanding of informed consent is often limited in prison, due to unique challenges faced by detained people. This study will test a modified "teach-to-goal" informed consent process compared to standard procedures. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- Conditions the study is for
- ADHD
- What is being tested?
- Modified teach-to-goal informed consent
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesSwitzerland
- Study dates
- 1 May 2024to 31 Oct 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- screened in the parent-RCT
- age ≥ 18 years
- good command of French
- absence of acute psychiatric disorder
- providing written informed consent for study participation in the parent-RCT
Who cannot join
- none.
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Switzerland2 sites, 2 recruiting
- Not yet recruiting
Geneva University Hospitals
Geneva, Canton of Geneva, 1211
Stéphanie Baggio, Prof., +41316846774, stephanie.baggio@unibe.ch
- Recruiting
Geneva University Hospitals
Geneva, Canton of Geneva, 1226
About this study
Understanding of informed consent is often limited in prison, due to unique challenges faced by detained people. This study will test a modified "teach-to-goal" informed consent process compared to standard procedures. Conducted within a larger study on psychiatric outcomes, it aims to enhance ethical practices for vulnerable populations.
Read the detailed description
Background and rationale. Informed consent is an ethical pillar of health-related research involving human subjects, but participants' understanding of informed consent is often limited. Informed consent is also a critical issue in prison research.
First, detained persons are deprived from liberty, a context that may undermine voluntary participation and autonomy. Second, detained persons have disproportionally low levels of education, literacy, and high rates of cognitive or substance- and psychiatric-related impairments. In Switzerland, a study conducted in the general population concluded that informed consent forms are too long and complex. Another study conducted in prison showed a full understanding of 5% in detained persons. Of note, a revision of the Federal Human Research Act (HRA) has just begun and includes propositions to strengthen informed consent. Nonetheless, few studies focused on understanding of informed consent in prison research and to our knowledge, no study with a robust methodology tested whether the most effective interventions in the general population are also effective in prison. Objective of the study. The overarching aim of this study is to estimate and improve understanding of informed consent in prison research, and better understanding characteristics associated with a low understanding. The informed consent process is a time-consuming process and studies may lack resources to ensure that participants provide fully informed consent. To fill in this critical research gap, this study will be embedded in a larger randomized controlled trial (RCT) ("parent-RCT") designed to improve psychiatric outcomes. We will use an RCT to compare two informed consent processes. Methods. This is a cross-sectional RCT (ratio 1:1) testing the effect of informed consent processes on understanding (primary endpoint) and evaluation (secondary endpoints) of informed consent. The research team and will not be blinded to the participants' group, but the statistician will be. Participants will be partially blinded. Data will be collected in four prisons among sentenced persons (n=100). The intervention will be modified "teach-to-goal" vs. standard informed consent process. In the modified teach-to-goal intervention, the participant is asked to describe the research procedures. Misconceptions are corrected by a study team member and the participant is asked to describe again the corresponding components. The procedure is iterated until correct and full understanding is reached. Analyses will include intention-to-treat bivariable and multivariable regressions. We will also explore associations between understanding and socio-demographic variables using logistic, linear or negative-binomial regressions, to identify characteristics associated with lower understanding. Expected results and impact. There is a growing recognition that prison research is needed. Improving informed consent in prison research therefore constitutes a critical but neglected issue, both as a separate research topic and for future research projects focusing on detained persons and more broadly, on vulnerable populations. Embedding a RCT on informed consent in an already existing RCT is an unconventional research process. We believe that it will provide "real (study) life" information on how informed consent is informed and ways to improve it. It will also ensure that ethical requirements are fully met in the parent-RCT. This study will thus provide scientific evidence on how to improve informed consent in prison research.
Results will be valuable for other vulnerable populations, including people with low levels of education and literacy and high burden of disease. We plan to publish results in a high-impact biomedical journal and to share them in international conferences and with Swiss cantonal Ethics Committees to raise awareness on informed consent as a core component of medical ethics in research, and more specifically, research involving vulnerable populations. The project may provide meaningful information for the revision of the HRA and help improving informed consent processes in Swiss research.
- Conditions
- ADHD
- Being tested
- Modified teach-to-goal informed consent
- Keywords
- Informed consent, Prison, Ethics
- Medical subject headings
- Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Modified teach-to-goal informed consentOther
Enhanced procedure to improve informed consent in vulnerable populations.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Standard informed consent | No intervention | According to ethical requirements of Swiss Human Research Act, the interviewer will explain the nature of the study, its purposes, duration, the potential risks and benefits it entails, and study procedures. He will inform that study participation is voluntary and that participants may withdraw at any time. He will also explain that the study is independent from the prison authorities. Participants will then be given time to read the informed consent, or, if they are not able to read, it will be read to them by the interviewer. The interviewer will answer all questions. |
| Modified teach-to-goal informed consent | Experimental | The standard process will first be used. After that, the interviewer will ask participants to summarize the content of the informed consent. The interviewer will correct not-well understood components and ask questions about forgotten components. In case of misconceptions, the participant will be asked to summarize again the corresponding components. A list of key components to be addressed will be developed by study team members, including experts in prison research and ethics, based on components listed in Art. 16 of the Swiss Human Research Act. The material of the informed consent of the parent-randomized controlled trial will be used. Receives: Other: Modified teach-to-goal informed consent |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Understanding of the informed consent (binary)
20 questions (true/false) evaluating whether the participant understood the information. A binary variable coded 1 if all questions are answered correctly and 0 otherwise will be computed.
Measured: Immediately after the intervention
Secondary outcomes (2)
Understanding of the informed consent (continuous)
20 questions (true/false) evaluating whether the participant understood the information. A score between 0 and 20 will be developed.
Measured: Immediately after the intervention
Evaluation of the informed consent
10 questions evaluated on a Likert 6-point scale evaluating what the participants thought of the information. A score between 0 and 50 will be computed.
Measured: Immediately after the intervention
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Apr 2024
- Study start1 May 2024
- Primary completion31 Oct 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Oct 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for ADHDStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Stéphanie Baggio
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Bern, Leiden University, School of Health Sciences Fribourg, University Hospital, Geneva, University of Lausanne
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Stéphanie Baggio, University Hospital, Geneva
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06378281
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CRSK-3_221381
- Acronym
- Spark BATIR
- Status last verified
- Oct 2026
- First submitted
- 18 Apr 2024
- Last updated
- 7 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 7 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Testing a New Method to Improve Informed Consent in Prison Research
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06378281
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Spark BATIR / CRSK-3_221381
- Conditions
- ADHD
- Keywords
- Informed consent, Prison, Ethics
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Stéphanie BaggioUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Bern, Leiden University, School of Health Sciences Fribourg, University Hospital, Geneva, University of Lausanne
- Study start
- 1 May 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Oct 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Oct 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 22 Apr 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Understanding of informed consent is often limited in prison, due to unique challenges faced by detained people. This study will test a modified "teach-to-goal" informed consent process compared to standard procedures. Conducted within a larger study on psychiatric outcomes, it aims to enhance ethical practices for vulnerable populations.
Detailed description
Background and rationale. Informed consent is an ethical pillar of health-related research involving human subjects, but participants' understanding of informed consent is often limited. Informed consent is also a critical issue in prison research.
First, detained persons are deprived from liberty, a context that may undermine voluntary participation and autonomy. Second, detained persons have disproportionally low levels of education, literacy, and high rates of cognitive or substance- and psychiatric-related impairments. In Switzerland, a study conducted in the general population concluded that informed consent forms are too long and complex. Another study conducted in prison showed a full understanding of 5% in detained persons. Of note, a revision of the Federal Human Research Act (HRA) has just begun and includes propositions to strengthen informed consent. Nonetheless, few studies focused on understanding of informed consent in prison research and to our knowledge, no study with a robust methodology tested whether the most effective interventions in the general population are also effective in prison. Objective of the study. The overarching aim of this study is to estimate and improve understanding of informed consent in prison research, and better understanding characteristics associated with a low understanding. The informed consent process is a time-consuming process and studies may lack resources to ensure that participants provide fully informed consent. To fill in this critical research gap, this study will be embedded in a larger randomized controlled trial (RCT) ("parent-RCT") designed to improve psychiatric outcomes. We will use an RCT to compare two informed consent processes. Methods. This is a cross-sectional RCT (ratio 1:1) testing the effect of informed consent processes on understanding (primary endpoint) and evaluation (secondary endpoints) of informed consent. The research team and will not be blinded to the participants' group, but the statistician will be. Participants will be partially blinded. Data will be collected in four prisons among sentenced persons (n=100). The intervention will be modified "teach-to-goal" vs. standard informed consent process. In the modified teach-to-goal intervention, the participant is asked to describe the research procedures. Misconceptions are corrected by a study team member and the participant is asked to describe again the corresponding components. The procedure is iterated until correct and full understanding is reached. Analyses will include intention-to-treat bivariable and multivariable regressions. We will also explore associations between understanding and socio-demographic variables using logistic, linear or negative-binomial regressions, to identify characteristics associated with lower understanding. Expected results and impact. There is a growing recognition that prison research is needed. Improving informed consent in prison research therefore constitutes a critical but neglected issue, both as a separate research topic and for future research projects focusing on detained persons and more broadly, on vulnerable populations. Embedding a RCT on informed consent in an already existing RCT is an unconventional research process. We believe that it will provide "real (study) life" information on how informed consent is informed and ways to improve it. It will also ensure that ethical requirements are fully met in the parent-RCT. This study will thus provide scientific evidence on how to improve informed consent in prison research.
Results will be valuable for other vulnerable populations, including people with low levels of education and literacy and high burden of disease. We plan to publish results in a high-impact biomedical journal and to share them in international conferences and with Swiss cantonal Ethics Committees to raise awareness on informed consent as a core component of medical ethics in research, and more specifically, research involving vulnerable populations. The project may provide meaningful information for the revision of the HRA and help improving informed consent processes in Swiss research.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Standard informed consent | No intervention | –According to ethical requirements of Swiss Human Research Act, the interviewer will explain the nature of the study, its purposes, duration, the potential risks and benefits it entails, and study procedures. He will inform that study participation is voluntary and that participants may withdraw at any time. He will also explain that the study is independent from the prison authorities. Participants will then be given time to read the informed consent, or, if they are not able to read, it will be read to them by the interviewer. The interviewer will answer all questions. |
| Modified teach-to-goal informed consent | Experimental | Other: Modified teach-to-goal informed consentThe standard process will first be used. After that, the interviewer will ask participants to summarize the content of the informed consent. The interviewer will correct not-well understood components and ask questions about forgotten components. In case of misconceptions, the participant will be asked to summarize again the corresponding components. A list of key components to be addressed will be developed by study team members, including experts in prison research and ethics, based on components listed in Art. 16 of the Swiss Human Research Act. The material of the informed consent of the parent-randomized controlled trial will be used. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- screened in the parent-RCT
- age ≥ 18 years
- good command of French
- absence of acute psychiatric disorder
- providing written informed consent for study participation in the parent-RCT
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- none.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Modified teach-to-goal informed consentEnhanced procedure to improve informed consent in vulnerable populations. | Other | Modified teach-to-goal informed consent |
Primary outcome
Understanding of the informed consent (binary)
Time frame: Immediately after the intervention
20 questions (true/false) evaluating whether the participant understood the information. A binary variable coded 1 if all questions are answered correctly and 0 otherwise will be computed.
2 secondary outcomes
Understanding of the informed consent (continuous)
Time frame: Immediately after the intervention
Evaluation of the informed consent
Time frame: Immediately after the intervention
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 7 Oct 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for ADHD
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Phase 1: Thrive Together: A Feasibility and Acceptability Evaluation of Peer Mentoring for High Schoolers With ADHD and Their Caregivers
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
RecruitingObservational study
Augmenting Parent Management Training for Child Temper Outbursts Using a Digital Tool
Disruptive Behavior Disorders, Conduct Disorder
RecruitingObservational study
Psychotherapy for Irritability in Youth: Comparing Active Treatment to Nonactive Psychoeducation Supportive Psychotherapy
Irritability, Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder
Active, not recruiting
Parent-Educator Action Response
Attention Deficit and Disruptive Behavior Disorders
RecruitingPhase 3
A Long-term Trial of EB-1020 in Adult Patients With ADHD
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Modified teach-to-goal informed consent in people with ADHD, run by Stéphanie Baggio at 2 sites in Switzerland.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 7 Oct 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in Switzerland. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Stéphanie Baggio, Prof. (+41216923238, stephanie.baggio@unil.ch), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Understanding of the informed consent (binary) (time frame: Immediately after the intervention). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 7 Oct 2026.