Literature DB >> 17391294

Improvement of the comprehension of written information given to healthy volunteers in biomedical research: a single-blind randomized controlled study.

Adeline Paris1, Daniel Nogueira da Gama Chaves, Catherine Cornu, Patrick Maison, Muriel Salvat-Mélis, Christophe Ribuot, Christian Brandt, Jean-Luc Bosson, Marc Hommel, Jean-Luc Cracowski.   

Abstract

Writing an informed consent form (ICF) for biomedical research is a difficult task. We conducted a multicenter single-blind randomized controlled trial to identify whether a working group or the systematic improvement in lexico-syntactic readability or an association of the two could increase the comprehension of the written information given to healthy volunteers enrolled in biomedical research. Participants were randomized to read one of four versions of the ICF: unchanged ICF (A), ICF with systematic lexico-syntactic readability improvement (B), ICF modified by a working group (C), and ICF modified by the working group followed by systematic lexico-syntactic improvement (D). The primary end-point was the objective comprehension score at day 0 for each study group. The scores of objective comprehension at day 0 were statistically different between the four study groups (anovaP = 0.020). The pairwise analysis showed an improvement in the working group vs. the unchanged group (P = 0.003), and a tendency to improvement in the group who read the ICF modified using lexico-syntactic readability and in the group who read the ICF modified using the two methods (P = 0.020 and 0.027 respectively). We conducted a two-way anova to identify some characteristics of the population which could explain this score. There was a significant interaction between the type of informed consent document (ICD) and the gender. Improving the ICD in phase I biomedical research leads to better comprehension, whether the method used is systematic lexico-syntactic improvement or a review by a working group. The improvement is specifically observed in men compared with women. Conversely, while both methods diverge in their effect on lexico-syntactic readability, their association is not mandatory. We suggest that in all phase I clinical trials, the ICF be improved by either method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17391294     DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-8206.2007.00472.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fundam Clin Pharmacol        ISSN: 0767-3981            Impact factor:   2.748


  14 in total

1.  Informational needs for participation in bioequivalence studies: the perspectives of experienced volunteers.

Authors:  Nut Koonrungsesomboon; Saranyapin Potikanond; Mingkwan Na Takuathung; Wutigri Nimlamool; Juntra Karbwang
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 2.953

2.  Improved informed consent documents for biomedical research do not increase patients' understanding but reduce enrolment: a study in real settings.

Authors:  Adeline Paris; Béatrice Deygas; Catherine Cornu; Claire Thalamas; Patrick Maison; Christian Duale; Maty Kane; Enkelejda Hodaj; Jean-Luc Cracowski
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-09-21       Impact factor: 4.335

3.  Impact of information leaflets on behavior of patients with gastroenteritis or tonsillitis: a cluster randomized trial in French primary care.

Authors:  Mélanie Sustersic; Eva Jeannet; Lucile Cozon-Rein; Florence Maréchaux; Céline Genty; Alison Foote; Sandra David-Tchouda; Luc Martinez; Jean-Luc Bosson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-07-25       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Informed consent document improvement does not increase patients' comprehension in biomedical research.

Authors:  Adeline Paris; Christian Brandt; Catherine Cornu; Patrick Maison; Claire Thalamas; Jean-Luc Cracowski
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.335

5.  The readability of information and consent forms in clinical research in France.

Authors:  Véronique Ménoni; Noël Lucas; Jean François Leforestier; Jérôme Dimet; François Doz; Gilles Chatellier; Jean-Marc Tréluyer; Hélène Chappuy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-05-11       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Is informed consent related to success in exercise and diet intervention as evaluated at 12 months? DR's EXTRA study.

Authors:  Helena Länsimies-Antikainen; Anna-Maija Pietilä; Tomi Laitinen; Vesa Kiviniemi; Rainer Rauramaa
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2010-06-08       Impact factor: 2.652

7.  Informed consent: how much awareness is there?

Authors:  Daniel Purcaru; Adrian Preda; Daniela Popa; Marius Alexandru Moga; Liliana Rogozea
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Improved participants' understanding in a healthy volunteer study using the SIDCER informed consent form: a randomized-controlled study.

Authors:  Nut Koonrungsesomboon; Supanimit Teekachunhatean; Nutthiya Hanprasertpong; Junjira Laothavorn; Kesara Na-Bangchang; Juntra Karbwang
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-12-29       Impact factor: 2.953

9.  Capacity to consent to research participation in adults with metastatic cancer: comparisons of brain metastasis, non-CNS metastasis, and healthy controls.

Authors:  Kyler Mulhauser; Dario A Marotta; Adam Gerstenecker; Gabrielle Wilhelm; Terina Myers; Meredith Gammon; David E Vance; Burt Nabors; John Fiveash; Kristen Triebel
Journal:  Neurooncol Pract       Date:  2020-03-09

Review 10.  Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials.

Authors:  Adam Nishimura; Jantey Carey; Patricia J Erwin; Jon C Tilburt; M Hassan Murad; Jennifer B McCormick
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 2.652

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.