Literature DB >> 8624288

The adequacy of consent forms for informing patients entering oncological clinical trials.

I N Olver1, L Buchanan, C Laidlaw, G Poulton.   

Abstract

The impact on 100 patients of information and consent forms signed prior to medical oncology clinical trials was evaluated by a survey at a subsequent visit. Only 40 patients believed that the purpose of the form was to explain the treatment. The form was listed as the major source of information by 12 patients while 52 listed a doctor and 26 a nurse. Although 21 patients believed that the form mad them less anxious, 19 patients believed that it made them more anxious. Despite 80 patients reading all of the form, 60 claiming to understand all of it and 68 claiming that in contained adequate information, in tests of recall only 52 patients could name all of their drugs and only 4 all of the side effects. The number of drugs named correlated with how much of the consent form had been read (p = 0.003) and the highest education level achieved by the patient (p = 0.0003). Patients under 55 years had significantly better recall. Patients with a better ECOG performance status were more likely to find the form very helpful. Such forms may not ensure that the requirements for informed consent are satisfied.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8624288     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.annonc.a059352

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Oncol        ISSN: 0923-7534            Impact factor:   32.976


  10 in total

1.  What advanced cancer patients with limited treatment options know about clinical research: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Sarah B Garrett; Christopher J Koenig; Laura Trupin; Fay J Hlubocky; Christopher K Daugherty; Anne Reinert; Pamela Munster; Daniel Dohan
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Moving Forward on Consent Practices in Australia.

Authors:  Rebekah E McWhirter; Lisa Eckstein
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 1.352

3.  Patient-doctor agreement on recall of clinical trial discussion across cultures.

Authors:  J Bernhard; J Aldridge; P N Butow; P Zoller; R Brown; A Smith; I Juraskova
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2012-09-27       Impact factor: 32.976

4.  A pilot study of simple interventions to improve informed consent in clinical research: feasibility, approach, and results.

Authors:  Nancy E Kass; Holly A Taylor; Joseph Ali; Kristina Hallez; Lelia Chaisson
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 2.486

5.  Patients' perceptions of information provided in clinical trials.

Authors:  P R Ferguson
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  Children, Gillick competency and consent for involvement in research.

Authors:  D Hunter; B K Pierscionek
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 2.903

7.  Protecting vulnerable research subjects in critical care trials: enhancing the informed consent process and recommendations for safeguards.

Authors:  Henry Silverman
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2011-04-13       Impact factor: 6.925

8.  Repeated assessments of informed consent comprehension among HIV-infected participants of a three-year clinical trial in Botswana.

Authors:  Lelia H Chaisson; Nancy E Kass; Bafanana Chengeta; Unami Mathebula; Taraz Samandari
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Patient perceptions concerning clinical trials in oncology patients.

Authors:  A L Dias; J H Chao; D Lee; Y Wu; G H Kloecker
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2016-09-21

10.  Continuing review of ethics in clinical trials: a surveillance study in Iran.

Authors:  Fariba Asghari; Seyedeh Mojgan Ghalandarpoorattar
Journal:  J Med Ethics Hist Med       Date:  2013-09-08
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.