Literature DB >> 16798101

Long term clinical trials: how much information do participants retain from the informed consent process?

Joan M Griffin1, James K Struve, Dorothea Collins, An Liu, David B Nelson, Hanna E Bloomfield.   

Abstract

Previous studies report mixed results about how much information study participants actually can read, understand and retain after completing the informed consent process; fewer studies have examined disparities in the retention and recall of information by patient factors, such as age, education, and race. Not retaining or being able to recall information from the informed consent process has potentially important ethical and legal implications and consequences for research quality and integrity, especially when found in populations that commonly are underserved or underrepresented in clinical trials. To determine how much basic knowledge participants finishing a five-year, multi-center, double-blinded randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial had about the study, participants (n=1,789) were asked at their final follow-up visit three multiple-choice questions: (1) the study's purpose; (2) the name of the medication under investigation; (3) the main side effect of the medication. The associations between knowledge of these fundamental details and participant social and demographic factors were investigated. A majority of participants correctly recalled the study's purpose (64.7%) and medication (79.6%), but few correctly reported the main side effect (31.1%). In spite of relatively high recall for study purpose and medication, disparities by age, education and race exist. Increasing age was significantly associated with higher odds of incorrectly recalling both the study purpose and the name of the study medication. Likewise those with less than a high school education were more likely to incorrectly identify the study's purpose and the name of the study medication. Black and other non-white race or ethnic groups were more than two and a half times as likely to incorrectly identify the study's purpose. These findings suggest that even the most basic information may not be understood or retained by important subgroups of patients enrolled in clinical trials. Implementing effective strategies, such as additional time and effort for consent or repetition of study information, may be necessary in order to assure ethical and valid consent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16798101     DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials        ISSN: 1551-7144            Impact factor:   2.226


  16 in total

1.  Appreciation of the informed consent procedure in a randomised trial of decompressive surgery for space occupying hemispheric infarction.

Authors:  J Hofmeijer; G J Amelink; H M den Hertog; A Algra; L J Kappelle; H B van der Worp
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2007-03-30       Impact factor: 10.154

2.  Investigating the informed consent process, therapeutic misconception and motivations of Egyptian research participants: a qualitative pilot study.

Authors:  H Mansour; N Zaki; R Abdelhai; N Sabry; H Silverman; S S El-Kamary
Journal:  East Mediterr Health J       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 1.628

3.  Subjects agree to participate in environmental health studies without fully comprehending the associated risk.

Authors:  Robin Lee; Samantha Lampert; Lynn Wilder; Anne L Sowell
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2011-03-11       Impact factor: 3.390

4.  Communicating With Diverse Patients About Participating in a Biobank: A Randomized Multisite Study Comparing Electronic and Face-to-Face Informed Consent Processes.

Authors:  Christian M Simon; Kai Wang; Laura A Shinkunas; Daniel T Stein; Paul Meissner; Maureen Smith; Rebecca Pentz; David W Klein
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2021-08-19       Impact factor: 1.742

5.  Can user testing of a clinical trial patient information sheet make it fit-for-purpose?--a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Peter Knapp; David K Raynor; Jonathan Silcock; Brian Parkinson
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2011-07-21       Impact factor: 8.775

Review 6.  Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nguyen Thanh Tam; Nguyen Tien Huy; Le Thi Bich Thoa; Nguyen Phuoc Long; Nguyen Thi Huyen Trang; Kenji Hirayama; Juntra Karbwang
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 9.408

7.  Readability and Content Assessment of Informed Consent Forms for Phase II-IV Clinical Trials in China.

Authors:  Gaiyan Wen; Xinchun Liu; Lihua Huang; Jingxian Shu; Nana Xu; Ruifang Chen; Zhijun Huang; Guoping Yang; Xiaomin Wang; Yuxia Xiang; Yao Lu; Hong Yuan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Performance-based readability testing of participant information for a Phase 3 IVF trial.

Authors:  Peter Knapp; D K Raynor; Jonathan Silcock; Brian Parkinson
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Patient representatives' views on patient information in clinical cancer trials.

Authors:  Pia Dellson; Mef Nilbert; Christina Carlsson
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  Patient information leaflets (PILs) for UK randomised controlled trials: a feasibility study exploring whether they contain information to support decision making about trial participation.

Authors:  Katie Gillies; Wan Huang; Zoë Skea; Jamie Brehaut; Seonaidh Cotton
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.