Literature DB >> 17760802

Improving participant comprehension in the informed consent process.

Elizabeth Cohn1, Elaine Larson.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17760802     DOI: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00180.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nurs Scholarsh        ISSN: 1527-6546            Impact factor:   3.176


  32 in total

1.  Parent participation and physician-parent communication during informed consent in child leukemia.

Authors:  Melissa Cousino; Rebecca Hazen; Amy Yamokoski; Victoria Miller; Stephen Zyzanski; Dennis Drotar; Eric Kodish
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2011-11-07       Impact factor: 7.124

2.  Does an interactive trust-enhanced electronic consent improve patient experiences when asked to share their health records for research? A randomized trial.

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

3.  Issues in conducting epidemiologic research among elders: lessons from the MOBILIZE Boston Study.

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

4.  Improved participants' understanding of research information in real settings using the SIDCER informed consent form: a randomized-controlled informed consent study nested with eight clinical trials.

Authors:  Nut Koonrungsesomboon; Thipaporn Tharavanij; Kittichet Phiphatpatthamaamphan; Ratha-Korn Vilaichone; Sudsayam Manuwong; Parichat Curry; Sith Siramolpiwat; Thanachai Punchaipornpon; Supakit Kanitnate; Nattapol Tammachote; Rodsarin Yamprasert; Waipoj Chanvimalueng; Ruchirat Kaewkumpai; Soiphet Netanong; Peerapong Kitipawong; Paskorn Sritipsukho; Juntra Karbwang
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016-11-12       Impact factor: 2.953

5.  SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials.

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

6.  Improving informed consent with minority participants: results from researcher and community surveys.

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

7.  A randomized study of multimedia informational aids for research on medical practices: Implications for informed consent.

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

8.  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

9.  Comparison of group counseling with individual counseling in the comprehension of informed consent: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Rajiv Sarkar; Thuppal V Sowmyanarayanan; Prasanna Samuel; Azara S Singh; Anuradha Bose; Jayaprakash Muliyil; Gagandeep Kang
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2010-05-14       Impact factor: 2.652

10.  How IRBs view and make decisions about consent forms.

Authors:  Robert L Klitzman
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.