Literature DB >> 19760365

Factual understanding of randomized clinical trials: a multicenter case-control study in cancer patients.

Tanguy Leroy1, Véronique Christophe, Nicolas Penel, Pascal Antoine, Stéphanie Clisant.   

Abstract

Objective Several reports have shown that despite the informed consent process, enrolled patients misunderstand the modalities and goals of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We believe that this may be linked to a priori misconceptions in the main population. The purpose of this study is to compare the knowledge about cancer RCTs in enrolled participants (cases) versus patients treated under cancer standard care who have never taken part in RCTs (controls). Methods We submitted a validated questionnaire (ICEC-R) to both populations to explore their knowledge about RCTs. A total of 75 cases and 107 controls were included. Results Globally, the cases' knowledge was significantly better, especially about (i) the randomization process, (ii) the uncertain potential benefits, and (iii) the right to withdraw consent. Both populations presented the lowest scores for items exploring the randomization process and uncertain treatment benefits. Conclusion Enrolled patients' comprehension of the goals and means of RCTs is actually better than controls'. Nevertheless, additional efforts should be made to enhance information about clinical research to patients as well as to the main population. Practice Implications Having better knowledge about patients' difficulties in understanding RCTs would allow physicians to adjust the information they give and then to enhance patients' well-being.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19760365     DOI: 10.1007/s10637-009-9315-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest New Drugs        ISSN: 0167-6997            Impact factor:   3.850


  18 in total

1.  What makes clinical research ethical?

Authors:  E J Emanuel; D Wendler; C Grady
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000 May 24-31       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Consent documents for oncology trials: does anybody read these things?

Authors:  S Michael Sharp
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.339

3.  Research participant information sheets are difficult to read.

Authors:  Linda Franck; Ira Winter
Journal:  Bull Med Ethics       Date:  2004-02

4.  The Deaconess Informed Consent Comprehension Test: an assessment tool for clinical research subjects.

Authors:  C K Miller; D C O'Donnell; H R Searight; R A Barbarash
Journal:  Pharmacotherapy       Date:  1996 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.705

5.  False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception.

Authors:  P S Appelbaum; L H Roth; C W Lidz; P Benson; W Winslade
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 2.683

6.  [Perception of written and oral information by 50 healthy volunteers from a monocentric study].

Authors:  Emmanuel Krupka; David Gendre; Claire Lafay; Odile Le Dez; Pascale Gelineau; Marie-Christine Perault-Pochat
Journal:  Therapie       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.070

7.  Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families?

Authors:  S A Grossman; S Piantadosi; C Covahey
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  [Readability of informed consent forms for subjects participating in biomedical research: updating is required].

Authors:  A Paris; J-L Cracowski; N Ravanel; C Cornu; F Gueyffier; B Deygas; K Guillot; J-L Bosson; M Hommel
Journal:  Presse Med       Date:  2005-01-15       Impact factor: 1.228

9.  Inadequate functional health literacy among patients at two public hospitals.

Authors:  M V Williams; R M Parker; D W Baker; N S Parikh; K Pitkin; W C Coates; J R Nurss
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-12-06       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Communication of randomization in childhood leukemia trials.

Authors:  Eric Kodish; Michelle Eder; Robert B Noll; Kathleen Ruccione; Beverly Lange; Anne Angiolillo; Rebecca Pentz; Stephen Zyzanski; Laura A Siminoff; Dennis Drotar
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-01-28       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  4 in total

1.  Length and complexity of US and international HIV consent forms from federal HIV network trials.

Authors:  Nancy E Kass; Lelia Chaisson; Holly A Taylor; Jennifer Lohse
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-07-06       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Repeated assessments of informed consent comprehension among HIV-infected participants of a three-year clinical trial in Botswana.

Authors:  Lelia H Chaisson; Nancy E Kass; Bafanana Chengeta; Unami Mathebula; Taraz Samandari
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  What the public knows and wants to know about medicines research and development: a survey of the general public in six European countries.

Authors:  Suzanne Parsons; Bella Starling; Christine Mullan-Jensen; Su-Gwan Tham; Kay Warner; Kim Wever
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 4.  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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.