Literature DB >> 22489444

Effect of a study map intended to support informed consent in transplant research.

Megan A Foradori1, Marie T Nolan.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Research participants' informed consent is integral to the protection of human subjects; studies exploring the enhancement of standard informed consent processes have had mixed success in increasing patients' understanding of complex research protocols.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a "study map," a flow diagram of a research protocol, on research participants' understanding of research purpose and procedures.
DESIGN: This study was an experimental posttest-only design using 30 research participants enrolling in a study of decision making and recovery among living kidney donors. Participants were randomly assigned to the standard care group (verbal description with consent documents) or the experimental group (standard of care plus study map). An instrument measured perceived and objective understanding, and the differences between groups were determined by an independent t test. DISCUSSION: The high level of comprehension in the control group made detecting improvements in understanding difficult. Objective knowledge and perceived understanding were positively related, suggesting the importance of periodically confirming comprehension with research participants during the informed consent process. Future research should examine the effect of study maps in patients with lower educational levels.
RESULTS: Knowledge levels were high in all participants (mean objective = 3.7 on a 5-point scale, SD = 1.02; mean subjective = 9.3 on a 10-point scale, SD = 1.29). There was a significant relationship between objective knowledge and perceived understanding (r = 0.56, P = .001); however, the study map itself had no significant effect on objective or perceived understanding.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22489444      PMCID: PMC8976440          DOI: 10.7182/pit2012553

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prog Transplant        ISSN: 1526-9248            Impact factor:   1.187


  8 in total

Review 1.  Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review.

Authors:  James Flory; Ezekiel Emanuel
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-10-06       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Attitude, self-image, and quality of life of living kidney donors.

Authors:  M C Corley; R K Elswick; C C Sargeant; S Scott
Journal:  Nephrol Nurs J       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 0.959

3.  Telephone-based nursing intervention improves the effectiveness of the informed consent process in cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  N K Aaronson; E Visser-Pol; G H Leenhouts; M J Muller; A C van der Schot; F S van Dam; R B Keus; C C Koning; W W ten Bokkel Huinink; J A van Dongen; R Dubbelman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Enhancing informed consent for research and treatment.

Authors:  L B Dunn; D V Jeste
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 7.853

5.  Randomized, controlled trial of an easy-to-read informed consent statement for clinical trial participation: a study of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

Authors:  Cathy A Coyne; Ronghui Xu; Peter Raich; Kathy Plomer; Mark Dignan; Lari B Wenzel; Diane Fairclough; Thomas Habermann; Linda Schnell; Susan Quella; David Cella
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-03-01       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Randomized, controlled evaluation of a prototype informed consent process for HIV vaccine efficacy trials.

Authors:  Anne S Coletti; Patrick Heagerty; Amy R Sheon; Michael Gross; Beryl A Koblin; David S Metzger; George R Seage
Journal:  J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr       Date:  2003-02-01       Impact factor: 3.731

7.  The effect of format modifications and reading comprehension on recall of informed consent information by low-income parents: a comparison of print, video, and computer-based presentations.

Authors:  Frances A Campbell; Barbara D Goldman; Maria L Boccia; Martie Skinner
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2004-05

Review 8.  On what basis should the effectiveness of decision aids be judged?

Authors:  Andrew D M Kennedy
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.377

  8 in total
  4 in total

1.  Perspectives of IRB chairs on the informed consent process.

Authors:  Eugene I Kane; Joseph J Gallo
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2016-10-31

2.  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

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Decision aids for people considering taking part in clinical trials.

Authors:  Katie Gillies; Seonaidh C Cotton; Jamie C Brehaut; Mary C Politi; Zoe Skea
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-11-27
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.