A Booklet on Participants’ Rights to Improve Consent for Clinical Research: A Randomized Trial
Open Access
- 19 October 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 7 (10), e47023
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047023
Abstract
Information on the rights of subjects in clinical trials has become increasingly complex and difficult to understand. This study evaluates whether a simple booklet which is relevant to all research studies improves the understanding of rights needed for subjects to provide informed consent. 21 currently used informed consent forms (ICF) from international clinical trials were separated into information related to the specific research study, and general information on participants’ rights. A booklet designed to provide information on participants’ rights which used simple language was developed to replace this information in current ICF’s Readability of each component of ICF’s and the booklet was then assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading ease score (FK). To further evaluate the booklet 282 hospital inpatients were randomised to one of three ways to present research information; a standard ICF, the booklet combined with a short ICF, or the booklet combined with a simplified ICF. Comprehension of information related to the research proposal and to participant’s rights was assessed by questionnaire. Information related to participants’ rights contributed an average of 44% of the words in standard ICFs, and was harder to read than information describing the clinical trial (FK 25 versus (vs.) 41 respectively, p = 0.0003). The booklet reduced the number of words and improved FK from 25 to 42. The simplified ICF had a slightly higher FK score than the standard ICF (50 vs. 42). Comprehension assessed in inpatients was better for the booklet and short ICF 62%, (95% confidence interval (CI) 56 to 67) correct, or simplified ICF 62% (CI 58 to 68) correct compared to 52%, (CI 47 to 57) correct for the standard ICF, p = 0.009. This was due to better understanding of questions on rights (62% vs. 49% correct, p = 0.0008). Comprehension of study related information was similar for the simplified and standard ICF (60% vs. 64% correct, p = 0.68). A booklet provides a simple consistent approach to providing information on participant rights which is relevant to all research studies, and improves comprehension of patients who typically participate in clinical trials.Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Length and Complexity of US and International HIV Consent Forms from Federal HIV Network TrialsJournal of General Internal Medicine, 2011
- The HydraHastings Center Report, 2010
- Impact of Detailed Informed Consent on Research Subjects’ Participation: A Prospective, Randomized TrialThe Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2008
- Improving Participant Comprehension in the Informed Consent ProcessJournal of Nursing Scholarship, 2007
- Understanding the decisions of cancer clinical trial participants to enter research studies: Factors associated with informed consent, patient satisfaction, and decisional regretPatient Education and Counseling, 2006
- Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research. A systematic reviewAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology, 2005
- Interventions to Improve Research Participants' Understanding in Informed Consent for ResearchPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,2004
- Informed consent during the clinical emergency of acute myocardial infarction (HER0-2 consent substudy): a prospective observational studyThe Lancet, 2003
- Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional surveyThe Lancet, 2001
- How informed is informed consent?: The BHAT experienceControlled Clinical Trials, 1981