Literature DB >> 2395147

Are we getting informed consent from patients with cancer?

H J Sutherland1, G A Lockwood, J E Till.   

Abstract

We developed a consent form for a hypothetical trial and asked patients to underline information that was pertinent to their decision to accept or refuse to participate in the proposed trial. We also investigated whether patients correctly interpreted statements describing the probability of certain events occurring. Of the 50 patients, 74% did not indicate that both risks and benefits were pertinent. Of the 20 patients who would not enter the trial, 70% focused on risks of therapy only. In contrast, of the 30 who agreed to enter, only 33% focused entirely on risks, while 10% did not note potential for either benefit or risk. For each of four probability statements, patients chose one of four possible interpretations, only one of which was correct. Depending on the statement, between 26 and 54% of the interpretations were incorrect. It appears that many decisions regarding trial entry may be based upon incomplete or incorrect information.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2395147      PMCID: PMC1292733          DOI: 10.1177/014107689008300710

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J R Soc Med        ISSN: 0141-0768            Impact factor:   18.000


  5 in total

Review 1.  Toward an informed discussion of informed consent: a review and critique of the empirical studies.

Authors:  Alan Meisel; Loren H Roth
Journal:  Ariz Law Rev       Date:  1983

2.  Timed magnitude comparisons of numerical and nonnumerical expressions of uncertainty.

Authors:  A Jaffe-Katz; D V Budescu; T S Wallsten
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1989-05

Review 3.  Informed consent.

Authors:  G J Annas
Journal:  Annu Rev Med       Date:  1978       Impact factor: 13.739

4.  Autonomy & the refusal of lifesaving treatment.

Authors:  B L Miller
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  1981-08       Impact factor: 2.683

Review 5.  Informed consent and patient decision making: two decades of research.

Authors:  C L Kaufmann
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 4.634

  5 in total
  9 in total

1.  Good clinical practice and informed consent are inseparable.

Authors:  L Doyal
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 5.994

2.  Studying patients' preferences in health care decision making. Health Services Research Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-09-15       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Bioethics for clinicians: 2. Disclosure.

Authors:  E Etchells; G Sharpe; M M Burgess; P A Singer
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-08-15       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 4.  Informed consent: moral necessity or illusion?

Authors:  L Doyal
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

5.  "Hello, hello--it's English I speak!": a qualitative exploration of patients' understanding of the science of clinical trials.

Authors:  M Stead; D Eadie; D Gordon; K Angus
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  A randomized study of multimedia informational aids for research on medical practices: Implications for informed consent.

Authors:  Stephanie A Kraft; Melissa Constantine; David Magnus; Kathryn M Porter; Sandra Soo-Jin Lee; Michael Green; Nancy E Kass; Benjamin S Wilfond; Mildred K Cho
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2016-09-23       Impact factor: 2.486

7.  A randomised controlled study of an audiovisual patient information intervention on informed consent and recruitment to cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  C Hutchison; C Cowan; T McMahon; J Paul
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2007-09-17       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  An audit of consent refusals in clinical research at a tertiary care center in India.

Authors:  S J Thaker; B H Figer; N J Gogtay; U M Thatte
Journal:  J Postgrad Med       Date:  2015 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.476

9.  A systematic review of risk communication in clinical trials: How does it influence decisions to participate and what are the best methods to improve understanding in a trial context?

Authors:  Maeve Coyle; Katie Gillies
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-16       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.