Elizabeth Cohn1, Elaine Larson. 1. School of Nursing/Adelphi University, Garden City, New York 11530, USA. cohn@adelphi.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: To critically analyze studies published within the past decade about participants' comprehension of informed consent in clinical research and to identify promising intervention strategies. DESIGN: Integrative review of literature. METHODS: The Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Inclusion criteria included studies (a) published between January 1, 1996 and January 1, 2007, (b) designed as descriptive or interventional studies of comprehension of informed consent for clinical research, (c) conducted in nonpsychiatric adult populations who were either patients or volunteer participants, (d) written in English, and (e) published in peer-reviewed journals. FINDINGS: Of the 980 studies identified, 319 abstracts were screened, 154 studies were reviewed, and 23 met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen studies (57%) were descriptive, and 10 (43%) were interventional. Interventions tested included simplified written consent documents, multimedia approaches, and the use of a trained professional (consent educator) to assist in the consent process. Collectively, no single intervention strategy was consistently associated with improved comprehension. Studies also varied in regard to the definition of comprehension and the tools used to measure it. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing regulatory scrutiny, deficiencies still exist in participant comprehension of the research in which they participate, as well as differences in how comprehension is measured and assessed. No single intervention was identified as consistently successful for improving participant comprehension, and results indicated that any successful consent process should at a minimum include various communication modes and is likely to require one-to-one interaction with someone knowledgeable about the study.
PURPOSE: To critically analyze studies published within the past decade about participants' comprehension of informed consent in clinical research and to identify promising intervention strategies. DESIGN: Integrative review of literature. METHODS: The Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Inclusion criteria included studies (a) published between January 1, 1996 and January 1, 2007, (b) designed as descriptive or interventional studies of comprehension of informed consent for clinical research, (c) conducted in nonpsychiatric adult populations who were either patients or volunteer participants, (d) written in English, and (e) published in peer-reviewed journals. FINDINGS: Of the 980 studies identified, 319 abstracts were screened, 154 studies were reviewed, and 23 met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen studies (57%) were descriptive, and 10 (43%) were interventional. Interventions tested included simplified written consent documents, multimedia approaches, and the use of a trained professional (consent educator) to assist in the consent process. Collectively, no single intervention strategy was consistently associated with improved comprehension. Studies also varied in regard to the definition of comprehension and the tools used to measure it. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing regulatory scrutiny, deficiencies still exist in participant comprehension of the research in which they participate, as well as differences in how comprehension is measured and assessed. No single intervention was identified as consistently successful for improving participant comprehension, and results indicated that any successful consent process should at a minimum include various communication modes and is likely to require one-to-one interaction with someone knowledgeable about the study.
Authors: Christopher A Harle; Elizabeth H Golembiewski; Kiarash P Rahmanian; Babette Brumback; Janice L Krieger; Kenneth W Goodman; Arch G Mainous; Ray E Moseley Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Elizabeth J Samelson; Jennifer L Kelsey; Douglas P Kiel; Anthony M Roman; L Adrienne Cupples; Marcie B Freeman; Richard N Jones; Marian T Hannan; Suzanne G Leveille; Margaret M Gagnon; Lewis A Lipsitz Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-10-25 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: An-Wen Chan; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Peter C Gøtzsche; Douglas G Altman; Howard Mann; Jesse A Berlin; Kay Dickersin; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Kenneth F Schulz; Wendy R Parulekar; Karmela Krleza-Jeric; Andreas Laupacis; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-01-08
Authors: Sandra Crouse Quinn; Mary A Garza; James Butler; Craig S Fryer; Erica T Casper; Stephen B Thomas; David Barnard; Kevin H Kim Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Stephanie A Kraft; Melissa Constantine; David Magnus; Kathryn M Porter; Sandra Soo-Jin Lee; Michael Green; Nancy E Kass; Benjamin S Wilfond; Mildred K Cho Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 2.486
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