Literature DB >> 17333746

Factors related to volunteer comprehension of informed consent for a clinical trial.

Nantawan Kaewpoonsri1, Kamolnetr Okanurak, Dwip Kitayaporn, Jaranit Kaewkungwal, Saowanit Vijaykadga, Sopit Thamaree.   

Abstract

The informed consent process has become a universal requirement for research involving human subjects. Its goal is to inform volunteers regarding research in order to make decision to participate or not. This study aimed to measure volunteers' comprehension levels concerning the clinical trial and to find out factors associated with that comprehension levels. Eighty-one volunteers who enrolled in a malaria clinical trial were recruited into the study. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect the information. Non-participant observation was used to observe the process of informed consent. Volunteers were interviewed three days after being recruited into the trial. The results show the volunteers' comprehension was low. Only 44% of volunteers had an acceptable level of comprehension. It also revealed that 20 volunteers were not aware of being volunteers. Most volunteers knew about the benefits of participating in the trial and realized that they had the right to withdraw from the study, but not many knew about the risks of the trial. The results indicated the method of informing about the trial affected the volunteers' comprehension level. No relationship was found between comprehension level and volunteers' socio-demographic characteristics and their attitude toward the consent process. The findings from this study demonstrate volunteers who participated in the clinical trial were not truly informed. Further studies regarding enhancing volunteers' understanding of the trial are needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17333746

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health        ISSN: 0125-1562            Impact factor:   0.267


  9 in total

1.  Correlates of lower comprehension of informed consent among participants enrolled in a cohort study in Pune, India.

Authors:  Neelam S Joglekar; Swapna S Deshpande; Seema Sahay; Manisha V Ghate; Robert C Bollinger; Sanjay M Mehendale
Journal:  Int Health       Date:  2012-12-30       Impact factor: 2.473

Review 2.  The quality of informed consent: mapping the landscape. A review of empirical data from developing and developed countries.

Authors:  Amulya Mandava; Christine Pace; Benjamin Campbell; Ezekiel Emanuel; Christine Grady
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  Tailoring information provision and consent processes to research contexts: the value of rapid assessments.

Authors:  Susan Bull; Bobbie Farsides; Fasil Tekola Ayele
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.742

Review 4.  Strengths and weaknesses of guideline approaches to safeguard voluntary informed consent of patients within a dependent relationship.

Authors:  Sara A S Dekking; Rieke van der Graaf; Johannes J M van Delden
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2014-03-24       Impact factor: 8.775

5.  Multimedia Informed Consent Tool for a Low Literacy African Research Population: Development and Pilot-Testing.

Authors:  Muhammed Olanrewaju Afolabi; Kalifa Bojang; Umberto D'Alessandro; Egeruan Babatunde Imoukhuede; Raffaella M Ravinetto; Heidi Jane Larson; Nuala McGrath; Daniel Chandramohan
Journal:  J Clin Res Bioeth       Date:  2014-04-05

6.  Impact of gender on the decision to participate in a clinical trial: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Lucas Lobato; Jeffrey Michael Bethony; Fernanda Bicalho Pereira; Shannon Lee Grahek; David Diemert; Maria Flávia Gazzinelli
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 7.  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

8.  A Comparison of the Quality of Informed Consent for Clinical Trials of an Experimental Hookworm Vaccine Conducted in Developed and Developing Countries.

Authors:  David J Diemert; Lucas Lobato; Ashley Styczynski; Maria Zumer; Amanda Soares; Maria Flávia Gazzinelli
Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis       Date:  2017-01-23

9.  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 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.