Literature DB >> 29037106

Standard Versus Simplified Consent Materials for Biobank Participation: Differences in Patient Knowledge and Trial Accrual.

Sarah B Garrett1, Marie Murphy1, James Wiley1, Daniel Dohan1.   

Abstract

Replacing standard consent materials with simplified materials is a promising intervention to improve patient comprehension, but there is little evidence on its real-world implementation. We employed a sequential two-arm design to compare the effect of standard versus simplified consent materials on potential donors' understanding of biobank processes and their accrual to an active biobanking program. Participants were female patients of a California breast health clinic. Subjects from the simplified arm answered more items correctly ( p = .064), reported "don't know" for fewer items ( p = .077), and consented to donate to the biobank at higher rates ( p = .025) than those from the standard arm. Replacing an extant consent form with a simplified version is feasible and may benefit patient comprehension and study accrual.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Common Rule; accrual; biobanks; biorepositories; enhanced consent form; informed consent; patient comprehension; tissue donors

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29037106      PMCID: PMC9137040          DOI: 10.1177/1556264617731869

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics        ISSN: 1556-2646            Impact factor:   1.978


  24 in total

1.  Bringing the Common Rule into the 21st Century.

Authors:  Kathy L Hudson; Francis S Collins
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Reading Level and Length of Written Research Consent Forms.

Authors:  Elaine Larson; Gabriella Foe; Rachel Lally
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 4.689

3.  Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. Final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2017-01-19

Review 4.  Participant comprehension of research for which they volunteer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Wanda Montalvo; Elaine Larson
Journal:  J Nurs Scholarsh       Date:  2014-08-15       Impact factor: 3.176

5.  Trends in the risks and benefits to patients with cancer participating in phase 1 clinical trials.

Authors:  Thomas G Roberts; Bernardo H Goulart; Lee Squitieri; Sarah C Stallings; Elkan F Halpern; Bruce A Chabner; G Scott Gazelle; Stan N Finkelstein; Jeffrey W Clark
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-11-03       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Informed consent and subject motivation to participate in a large, population-based genomics study: the Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project.

Authors:  Catherine A McCarty; Anuradha Nair; Diane M Austin; Philip F Giampietro
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2007

Review 7.  Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents.

Authors:  Michael Jefford; Rosemary Moore
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 41.316

8.  Development of Plain Language Supplemental Materials for the Biobank Informed Consent Process.

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

9.  Developing a simplified consent form for biobanking.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Joëlle Y Friedman; N Chantelle Hardy; Li Lin; Kevin P Weinfurt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-10-08       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials.

Authors:  Adam Nishimura; Jantey Carey; Patricia J Erwin; Jon C Tilburt; M Hassan Murad; Jennifer B McCormick
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 2.652

View more
  4 in total

1.  Facilitating Informed Permission/Assent/Consent in Pediatric Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Susan M Abdel-Rahman
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 3.022

2.  Understanding of Critical Elements of Informed Consent in Genomic Research: A Case of a Paediatric HIV-TB Research Project in Uganda.

Authors:  Francis Anyaka Amayoa; Frederick Nelson Nakwagala; John Barugahare; Ian Guyton Munabi; Erisa Sabakaki Mwaka
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2022-05-12       Impact factor: 1.978

3.  The impact of central IRB's on informed consent readability and trial adherence in SPRINT.

Authors:  Leonardo Tamariz; Mitscher Gajardo; Carolyn H Still; Lisa H Gren; Elizabeth Clark; Sandy Walsh; Jeff Whittle; John Nord; Thomas Ramsey; Gabriel Contreras
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2019-07-06

4.  Informed Consent for Mobile Phone Health Surveys in Colombia: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Mariana Rodriguez-Patarroyo; Angelica Torres-Quintero; Andres I Vecino-Ortiz; Kristina Hallez; Aixa Natalia Franco-Rodriguez; Eduardo A Rueda Barrera; Stephanie Puerto; Dustin G Gibson; Alain Labrique; George W Pariyo; Joseph Ali
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2020-09-25       Impact factor: 1.742

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.