Literature DB >> 24296322

Understanding and retention of trial-related information among participants in a clinical trial after completing the informed consent process.

Fernanda Mexas1, Anne Efron, Ronir Raggio Luiz, Michelle Cailleaux-Cezar, Richard E Chaisson, Marcus B Conde.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND
METHODS: for assessing the level of understanding of trial-related information during the informed consent (IC) process in developing countries are lacking.
PURPOSE: To assess the understanding and retention of trial-related information presented in the IC process by administering an informed consent assessment instrument (ICAI) to participants in a clinical trial for a new tuberculosis (TB) regimen being conducted in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). Methods The format of the ICAI was based on the language and structure of the United States National Cancer Institute's IC comprehension checklist. The ICAI was designed to assess points of the RioMAR study IC process that addressed the principles of research ethics requested by Brazilian Regulatory Authority: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Briefly, (1) Is the respondent participating in a clinical trial? (2) Are two different treatments being evaluated? (3) Is the treatment arm chosen by chance? (4) Is an HIV test required? (5) Are liver function tests required? (6) Can participants leave the study at any time? (7) Are the risks and benefits of taking part in the study clear? (8) May pregnant women participate in the study? (9) Can one of the study drugs reduce the effectiveness of contraceptives? (10) Are patients paid to participate in the study? The ICAI was applied at two time points: immediately after enrollment in the clinical trial and 2 months later.
RESULTS: A total of 61 patients who enrolled in the RioMAR study participated in this study. The percentage of correct answers to all questions was 82% at the time of the first ICAI; 31 participants (51%) did not recall that an HIV test was required (question 4) and 43 (70%) did not know that they could leave the study (question 6). Other individual questions were answered correctly by at least 76% of participants. There was no association between incorrect answers and age, gender, monthly family income, neighborhood, or level of education (p > 0.07). When the responses to the first and the second ICAI questions were compared, 15% or more of participants had conflicting answers to 5 of the 10 questions. LIMITATIONS: The ICAI uses dichotomous responses, leading to a 50% chance of guessing the correct answers. Two questions were asked only of women. Finally, only 6 of the 10 questions on the current version of the ICAI apply to most trials; others are trial-specific.
CONCLUSIONS: The ICAI may be adapted to an individual trial and may prove to be a useful tool following a consent discussion to identify issues not fully understood by the research participants, thus prompting study staff to re-explain topics, possibly in a more elementary manner.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24296322     DOI: 10.1177/1740774513509316

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Trials        ISSN: 1740-7745            Impact factor:   2.486


  7 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.  Latino beliefs about biomedical research participation: a qualitative study on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Authors:  Rachel M Ceballos; Sarah Knerr; Mary Alice Scott; Sarah D Hohl; Rachel C Malen; Hugo Vilchis; Beti Thompson
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 1.742

3.  Recall of clinical trial participation and attrition rates in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Authors:  Erin F Carlton; Erin Ice; Ryan P Barbaro; Lee Kampuis; Marc Moss; Derek C Angus; Valerie M Banner-Goodspeed; Adit A Ginde; Michelle N Gong; Colin K Grissom; Peter C Hou; David T Huang; Catherine Terri Lee Hough; Daniel S Talmor; B Taylor Thompson; Donald M Yealy; Mick P Couper; Theodore J Iwashyna
Journal:  J Crit Care       Date:  2021-04-17       Impact factor: 4.298

4.  The effect of flour from the rind of the yellow passion fruit on glycemic control of people with diabetes mellitus type 2: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Márcio Flávio Moura de Araújo; Vivian Saraiva Veras; Roberto Wagner Júnior Freire de Freitas; Maria do Livramento de Paula; Thiago Moura de Araújo; Lilian Raquel Alexandre Uchôa; Maria Wendiane Gueiros Gaspar; Maria da Conceição do Santos Oliveira Cunha; Maria Aparecida Alves de Oliveira Serra; Carolina Maria de Lima Carvalho; Edmara Chaves Costa; Marta Maria Coelho Damasceno
Journal:  J Diabetes Metab Disord       Date:  2017-04-17

5.  What do adult outpatients included in clinical trials know about the investigational drugs being assessed: A cross-sectional study in France.

Authors:  Clémentine Fronteau; Maxime Paré; Philippe Benoit; Sophie Tollec; Catherine Hamon; Vérane Schwiertz; Christian Maillard; Amélie Cransac; Christelle Volteau; Jean-François Huon; Véronique Burgeot; Martine Tching-Sin; Corinne Guérin; Laurent Flet
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Making a decision about trial participation: the feasibility of measuring deliberation during the informed consent process for clinical trials.

Authors:  Katie Gillies; Glyn Elwyn; Jonathan Cook
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Informed consent for clinical treatment in low-income setting: evaluating the relationship between satisfying consent and extent of recall of consent information.

Authors:  Ikenna I Nnabugwu; Fredrick O Ugwumba; Emeka I Udeh; Solomon K Anyimba; Oyiogu F Ozoemena
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2017-12-02       Impact factor: 2.652

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.