Literature DB >> 12528731

The extent of written trial information: preferences among potential and actual trial subjects.

S M Madsen, S Holm, P Riis.   

Abstract

AIM: To investigate the preferred extent of written information in clinical trials among potential and actual trial participants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questionnaire survey among citizens of Copenhagen County (PUB, N=508), patients attending an out-patient clinic (OPC, N=200), and finally among participants in two clinical trials (ROC, N=32; MRCRUC, N=47--see Abbreviations). Questions concerned attitudes to and preferences towards a relatively short ("short form") and a more detailed information form ("long form") about a hypothetical, but realistic trial.
RESULTS: Approximately 1/8 of the respondents in PUB were satisfied with the "short form", whereas this was the case for approximately 1/6 of outpatients and 1/5 of actual trial participants. Regarding the "long form" approximately three quarters of respondents in all groups were satisfied. Outpatients as a whole were satisfied to a larger extent that respondents from the PUB trial concerning the "short form" (p=0.04). The "long form" was preferred by a little less than 4/5 of respondents in all groups.
CONCLUSION: Written information to trial subjects should be detailed, as a majority of both potential and actual research participants prefers this, given the choice between two information forms of different extent on the same trial.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 12528731

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bull Med Ethics        ISSN: 0962-9564


  4 in total

1.  Quantitative aspects of informed consent: considering the dose response curve when estimating quantity of information.

Authors:  N Lynöe; K Hoeyer
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  A randomized controlled trial of short and standard-length consent forms for a genetic cohort study: is longer better?

Authors:  Kenji Matsui; Reidar K Lie; Tanvir C Turin; Yoshikuni Kita
Journal:  J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-03-24       Impact factor: 3.211

3.  Bioethical reflexivity and requirements of valid consent: conceptual tools.

Authors:  John Barugahare
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2019-07-04       Impact factor: 2.652

4.  Informing potential participants about research: observational study with an embedded randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Helen M Kirkby; Melanie Calvert; Richard J McManus; Heather Draper
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.