Literature DB >> 22337156

A randomized controlled study to assess patients' understanding of and consenting for clinical trials using two different consent form presentations.

A A Abd-Elsayed1, D I Sessler, M Mendoza-Cuartas, J E Dalton, T Said, J Meinert, G Upton, C Franklin, A Kurz.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Informed consent is the ethical basis for clinical research. The physical appearance of the consent document may influence patients' willingness to carefully read the consent document. We therefore tested the hypothesis that presentation of consent documents in an enhanced format improves patients' attention, understanding and therefore willingness to consent for clinical research.
METHODS: Patients being asked to participate in three large clinical trials were randomly assigned to enhanced or routine presentation. The enhanced document was printed on 20-pound, cream-colored bond paper and presented in a blue folio. In contrast, patients assigned to routine presentation were given an otherwise identical stapled set of photocopied pages. The primary outcome was the effect of the enhanced format on the proportion of patients consenting; the major secondary outcome was patient's understanding of the presented procedures and risks.
RESULTS: A total of 189 of 251 (75%) patients approached with standard format consenting documents consented for an underlying study, whereas 164 of 248 (66%) approached with enhanced format documents consented; the adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for consenting (comparing enhanced to standard formats) was 0.64 (0.43, 0.95), P=0.03. About 90% of the patients in each group correctly identified the major study intervention and major associated risk. Neither patients' characteristics nor understanding affected the consenting rate for the presented clinical research.
CONCLUSION: Consent forms in an enhanced format (i.e., printed on fine paper and presented in a folio) did not improve patients' understanding or willingness to consent to participate in clinical trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22337156

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Minerva Anestesiol        ISSN: 0375-9393            Impact factor:   3.051


  4 in total

1.  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

2.  A pilot study of simple interventions to improve informed consent in clinical research: feasibility, approach, and results.

Authors:  Nancy E Kass; Holly A Taylor; Joseph Ali; Kristina Hallez; Lelia Chaisson
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 2.486

3.  Cochrane in CORR®: Strategies to Improve Recruitment to Randomised Trials.

Authors:  Kim Madden; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 4.  Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.

Authors:  Shaun Treweek; Marie Pitkethly; Jonathan Cook; Cynthia Fraser; Elizabeth Mitchell; Frank Sullivan; Catherine Jackson; Tyna K Taskila; Heidi Gardner
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-02-22
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.