Literature DB >> 21098797

What do our patients understand about their trial participation? Assessing patients' understanding of their informed consent consultation about randomised clinical trials.

C Behrendt1, T Gölz, C Roesler, H Bertz, A Wünsch.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ethically, informed consent regarding randomised controlled trials (RCTs) should be understandable to patients. The patients can then give free consent or decline to participate in a RCT. Little is known about what patients really understand in consultations about RCTs.
METHODS: Cancer patients who were asked to participate in a randomised trial were surveyed using a semi-standardised interview developed by the authors. The interview addresses understanding, satisfaction and needs of the patients. The sample included eight patients who participated in a trial and two who declined. The data were analysed on the basis of Mayring's qualitative analysis.
RESULTS: Patients' understanding of informed consent was less developed than anticipated, especially concerning key elements such as randomisation, content and procedure of RCTs. Analysing the result about satisfaction of the patients, most of the patients described their consultations as hectic and without advance notice. Health limitations due to cancer played a decisive role. However, most of the patients perceived their physician to be sympathetic. Analysing the needs of patients, they ask for a clear informed consent consultation with enough time and adequate advance notice.
CONCLUSION: This study fills an important empirical research gap of what is ethically demanded in an RCT consultation and what is really understood by patients. The qualitative approach enabled us to obtain new results about cancer patients' understanding of informed consent, to clarify patients' needs and to develop new ideas to optimise the informed consent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21098797     DOI: 10.1136/jme.2010.035485

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  26 in total

1.  The MICHR Genomic DNA BioLibrary: An Empirical Study of the Ethics of Biorepository Development.

Authors:  Blake J Roessler; Nicholas H Steneck; Lisa Connally
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2015-01-06       Impact factor: 1.742

2.  Levetiracetam as an alternative to phenytoin for second-line emergency treatment of children with convulsive status epilepticus: the EcLiPSE RCT.

Authors:  Richard E Appleton; Naomi Ea Rainford; Carrol Gamble; Shrouk Messahel; Amy Humphreys; Helen Hickey; Kerry Woolfall; Louise Roper; Joanne Noblet; Elizabeth Lee; Sarah Potter; Paul Tate; Nadia Al Najjar; Anand Iyer; Vicki Evans; Mark D Lyttle
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 4.014

3.  Comprehension of a simplified assent form in a vaccine trial for adolescents.

Authors:  Sonia Lee; Bill G Kapogiannis; Patricia M Flynn; Bret J Rudy; James Bethel; Sushma Ahmad; Diane Tucker; Sue Ellen Abdalian; Dannie Hoffman; Craig M Wilson; Coleen K Cunningham
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2013-01-24       Impact factor: 2.903

4.  Rationale for participation in venous leg ulcer clinical research: Patient interview study.

Authors:  Carolina D Weller; Catelyn Richards; Louise Turnour; Victoria Team
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2020-07-13       Impact factor: 3.315

5.  Consent for participating in clinical trials - Is it really informed?

Authors:  Teodora Alexa-Stratulat; Marius Neagu; Anca-Iulia Neagu; Ioana Dana Alexa; Beatrice Gabriela Ioan
Journal:  Dev World Bioeth       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 2.294

6.  Ethical aspects in tissue research: thematic analysis of ethical statements to the research ethics committee.

Authors:  Arja Halkoaho; Anna-Maija Pietilä; Mari Vesalainen; Kirsi Vähäkangas
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 2.652

7.  Informing potential participants about research: observational study with an embedded randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Helen M Kirkby; Melanie Calvert; Richard J McManus; Heather Draper
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  A randomised controlled trial of six weeks of home enteral nutrition versus standard care after oesophagectomy or total gastrectomy for cancer: report on a pilot and feasibility study.

Authors:  David J Bowrey; Melanie Baker; Vanessa Halliday; Anne L Thomas; Ruth Pulikottil-Jacob; Karen Smith; Tom Morris; Arne Ring
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-11-21       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 9.  Volunteer experiences and perceptions of the informed consent process: Lessons from two HIV clinical trials in Uganda.

Authors:  Agnes Ssali; Fiona Poland; Janet Seeley
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2015-12-03       Impact factor: 2.652

10.  Could the decision of trial participation precede the informed consent process? Evidence from Burkina Faso.

Authors:  Lea Paré Toe; Raffaella M Ravinetto; Susan Dierickx; Charlotte Gryseels; Halidou Tinto; Noèl Rouamba; Ibrahim Diallo; Yacouba Cissao; Korotimi Bayala; Susanna Hausmann; Joan Muela; Umberto D'Alessandro; Koen Peeters Grietens
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.