Christiane Reinert1, Lukas Kremmler1, Susen Burock2, Ulrich Bogdahn1, Wolfgang Wick3, Christoph H Gleiter4, Michael Koller5, Peter Hau6. 1. Department of Neurology and Wilhelm Sander NeuroOncology Unit, University Hospital Regensburg, Franz Josef Strauß-Allee 11, 93047 Regensburg, Germany. 2. EORTC Headquarters, Avenue E. Mounier 83/11, 1200 Brussels, Belgium. 3. Division of Neuro Oncology, University of Heidelberg and National Center for Tumor Diseases, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. 4. CenTrial GmbH, University Hospital Tübingen, Paul-Ehrlich-Str. 5, 72076 Tübingen, Germany. 5. Center for Clinical Studies, University Hospital Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93053 Regensburg, Germany. 6. Department of Neurology and Wilhelm Sander NeuroOncology Unit, University Hospital Regensburg, Franz Josef Strauß-Allee 11, 93047 Regensburg, Germany. Electronic address: peter.hau@medbo.de.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In randomised controlled trials (RCTs), patient informed consent documents are an essential cornerstone of the study flow. However, these documents are often oversized in format and content. Clinical experience suggests that study information sheets are often not used as an aid to decision-making due to their complexity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analysed nine patient informed consent documents from clinical neuro-oncological phase III-studies running at a German Brain Tumour Centre with the objective to investigate the quality of these documents. Text length, formal layout, readability, application of ethical and legal requirements, scientific evidence and social aspects were used as rating categories. Results were assessed quantitatively by two independents investigators and were depicted using net diagrams. RESULTS: All patient informed consent documents were of insufficient quality in all categories except that ethical and legal requirements were fulfilled. Notably, graduate levels were required to read and understand five of nine consent documents. DISCUSSION: Quality deficits were consistent between the individual study information texts. Irrespective of formal aspects, a document that is intended to inform and motivate patients to participate in a study needs to be well-structured and understandable. We therefore strongly mandate to re-design patient informed consent documents in a patient-friendly way. Specifically, standardised components with a scientific foundation should be provided that could be retrieved at various times, adapted to the mode of treatment and the patient's knowledge, and could weigh information dependent of the stage of treatment decision.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: In randomised controlled trials (RCTs), patient informed consent documents are an essential cornerstone of the study flow. However, these documents are often oversized in format and content. Clinical experience suggests that study information sheets are often not used as an aid to decision-making due to their complexity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analysed nine patient informed consent documents from clinical neuro-oncological phase III-studies running at a German Brain Tumour Centre with the objective to investigate the quality of these documents. Text length, formal layout, readability, application of ethical and legal requirements, scientific evidence and social aspects were used as rating categories. Results were assessed quantitatively by two independents investigators and were depicted using net diagrams. RESULTS: All patient informed consent documents were of insufficient quality in all categories except that ethical and legal requirements were fulfilled. Notably, graduate levels were required to read and understand five of nine consent documents. DISCUSSION: Quality deficits were consistent between the individual study information texts. Irrespective of formal aspects, a document that is intended to inform and motivate patients to participate in a study needs to be well-structured and understandable. We therefore strongly mandate to re-design patient informed consent documents in a patient-friendly way. Specifically, standardised components with a scientific foundation should be provided that could be retrieved at various times, adapted to the mode of treatment and the patient's knowledge, and could weigh information dependent of the stage of treatment decision.
Authors: Andrea Pace; Johan A F Koekkoek; Martin J van den Bent; Helen J Bulbeck; Jane Fleming; Robin Grant; Heidrun Golla; Roger Henriksson; Simon Kerrigan; Christine Marosi; Ingela Oberg; Stefan Oberndorfer; Kathy Oliver; H Roeline W Pasman; Emilie Le Rhun; Alasdair G Rooney; Roberta Rudà; Simone Veronese; Tobias Walbert; Michael Weller; Wolfgang Wick; Martin J B Taphoorn; Linda Dirven Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2020-07-16
Authors: Caitlin B O'Hara; Ruth R Canter; Paul R Mouncey; Anjali Carter; Nicola Jones; Simon Nadel; Mark J Peters; Mark D Lyttle; David A Harrison; Kathryn M Rowan; David Inwald; Kerry Woolfall Journal: Arch Dis Child Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 3.791
Authors: Christiane Reinert; Michael Gerken; Katharina Rathberger; Katharina Krueger; Monika Klinkhammer-Schalke; Patricia Lindberg-Scharf; Oliver Koelbl; Martin A Proescholdt; Markus J Riemenschneider; Tobias Pukrop; Elisabeth Bumes; Markus Hutterer; Peter Hau Journal: BMC Psychol Date: 2020-09-10
Authors: Anna Kearney; Anna Rosala-Hallas; Naomi Bacon; Anne Daykin; Alison R G Shaw; Athene J Lane; Jane M Blazeby; Mike Clarke; Paula R Williamson; Carrol Gamble Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 3.240