BACKGROUND: Consent to participate in research is an important component of the conduct of ethical clinical trials. Current consent practices are largely policy-driven. This study was conducted to assess comprehension of study information and satisfaction with the consent form between subjects randomized to concise or to standard informed consent forms as one approach to developing evidence-based consent practices. METHODS:Participants (N=111) who enrolled into two Phase I investigational influenza vaccine protocols (VRC 306 and VRC 307) at the NIH Clinical Center were randomized to one of two IRB-approved consents; either a standard or concise form. Concise consents had an average of 63% fewer words. All other aspects of the consent process were the same. Questionnaires about the study and the consent process were completed at enrollment and at the last visit in both studies. RESULTS: Subjects using concise consent forms scored as well as those using standard length consents in measures of comprehension (7 versus 7, p=0.79 and 20 versus 21, p=0.13), however, the trend was for the concise consent group to report feeling better informed. Both groups thought the length and detail of the consent form were appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Randomization of study subjects to different length IRB-approved consent forms as one method for developing evidence-based consent practices, resulted in no differences in study comprehension or satisfaction with the consent form. A concise consent form may be used ethically in the context of a consent process conducted by well-trained staff with opportunities for discussion and education throughout the study. Published by Elsevier Inc.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Consent to participate in research is an important component of the conduct of ethical clinical trials. Current consent practices are largely policy-driven. This study was conducted to assess comprehension of study information and satisfaction with the consent form between subjects randomized to concise or to standard informed consent forms as one approach to developing evidence-based consent practices. METHODS:Participants (N=111) who enrolled into two Phase I investigational influenza vaccine protocols (VRC 306 and VRC 307) at the NIH Clinical Center were randomized to one of two IRB-approved consents; either a standard or concise form. Concise consents had an average of 63% fewer words. All other aspects of the consent process were the same. Questionnaires about the study and the consent process were completed at enrollment and at the last visit in both studies. RESULTS: Subjects using concise consent forms scored as well as those using standard length consents in measures of comprehension (7 versus 7, p=0.79 and 20 versus 21, p=0.13), however, the trend was for the concise consent group to report feeling better informed. Both groups thought the length and detail of the consent form were appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Randomization of study subjects to different length IRB-approved consent forms as one method for developing evidence-based consent practices, resulted in no differences in study comprehension or satisfaction with the consent form. A concise consent form may be used ethically in the context of a consent process conducted by well-trained staff with opportunities for discussion and education throughout the study. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Julie E Ledgerwood; Chih-Jen Wei; Zonghui Hu; Ingelise J Gordon; Mary E Enama; Cynthia S Hendel; Patrick M McTamney; Melissa B Pearce; Hadi M Yassine; Jeffrey C Boyington; Robert Bailer; Terrence M Tumpey; Richard A Koup; John R Mascola; Gary J Nabel; Barney S Graham Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2011-10-03 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Julie E Ledgerwood; Zonghui Hu; Pamela Costner; Galina Yamshchikov; Mary E Enama; Sarah Plummer; Cynthia S Hendel; Lasonji Holman; Brenda Larkin; Ingelise Gordon; Robert T Bailer; Donald M Poretz; Uzma Sarwar; Alisha Kabadi; Richard Koup; John R Mascola; Barney S Graham Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 2.226
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
Authors: Amy Corneli; Emily Namey; Monique P Mueller; Jenae Tharaldson; Steve Sortijas; Thomas Grey; Jeremy Sugarman Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Jeffrey L Saver; Tudor G Jovin; Wade S Smith; Gregory W Albers; Jean-Claude Baron; Johannes Boltze; Joseph P Broderick; Lisa A Davis; Andrew M Demchuk; Salvatore DeSena; Jens Fiehler; Philip B Gorelick; Werner Hacke; Bill Holt; Reza Jahan; Hui Jing; Pooja Khatri; Chelsea S Kidwell; Kennedy R Lees; Michael H Lev; David S Liebeskind; Marie Luby; Patrick Lyden; J Thomas Megerian; J Mocco; Keith W Muir; Howard A Rowley; Richard M Ruedy; Sean I Savitz; Vitas J Sipelis; Samuel K Shimp; Lawrence R Wechsler; Max Wintermark; Ona Wu; Dileep R Yavagal; Albert J Yoo Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-11-05 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Bettina F Drake; Katherine M Brown; Sarah Gehlert; Leslie E Wolf; Joann Seo; Hannah Perkins; Melody S Goodman; Kimberly A Kaphingst Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 2.037