Literature DB >> 8853668

Informed consent for medical research: common discrepancies and readability.

L J White1, J S Jones, C W Felton, L C Pool.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify common discrepancies and average reading grade levels for informed consent forms (ICFs) as submitted to institutional review boards (IRBs) by medical researchers.
METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of ICFs as submitted to IRBs of 3 university-affiliated hospitals during a 1-year period. ICF content was evaluated using a checklist of 23 requirements specified in the federal regulations governing human research. Documents then were computer-analyzed to determine the readability scores using 2 common indexes of comprehension. A discrepancy was defined as any instance in which an ICF did not address an applicable requirement in the Code of Federal Regulations.
RESULTS: Eighty-two ICFs representing 16 medical specialties were evaluated; 8 (10%) were from emergency medicine. Eighteen ICFs (22%) were conspicuously incomplete, lacking > or = 9 federal requirements. The mean number of discrepancies was 4.7 (95% CI, 3.9-5.5) Common omissions included: a statement about who is doing the research, number of subjects in the study, circumstances when a subject's participation may be terminated, disclosure of alternative procedures, and notice to subjects regarding new findings. The mean Flesch grade level required to read all ICFs was 13.8 (95% CI, 13.5-14.2), implying that the majority of the U.S. adult population would be unable to comprehend these forms.
CONCLUSION: Designing a consent form to meet all of the federal requirements while maintaining a level of reading comprehension suitable for the general population is a difficult task for investigators.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8853668     DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1996.tb03509.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Emerg Med        ISSN: 1069-6563            Impact factor:   3.451


  9 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.  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

3.  The readability of information and consent forms in clinical research in France.

Authors:  Véronique Ménoni; Noël Lucas; Jean François Leforestier; Jérôme Dimet; François Doz; Gilles Chatellier; Jean-Marc Tréluyer; Hélène Chappuy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-05-11       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Simplifying informed consent for biorepositories: stakeholder perspectives.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Joëlle Y Friedman; N Chantelle Hardy; Li Lin; Kevin P Weinfurt
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 8.822

5.  Readability of the written study information in pediatric research in France.

Authors:  Véronique Ménoni; Noël Lucas; Jean-François Leforestier; François Doz; Gilles Chatellier; Evelyne Jacqz-Aigain; Carole Giraud; Jean-Marc Tréluyer; Hélène Chappuy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-04-06       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  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

7.  Malaria rapid diagnostic kits: quality of packaging, design and labelling of boxes and components and readability and accuracy of information inserts.

Authors:  Philippe Gillet; Jessica Maltha; Veerle Hermans; Raffaella Ravinetto; Cathrien Bruggeman; Jan Jacobs
Journal:  Malar J       Date:  2011-02-13       Impact factor: 2.979

8.  Details of risk-benefit communication in informed consent documents for phase I/II trials.

Authors:  Hannes Kahrass; Sabine Bossert; Christopher Schürmann; Daniel Strech
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2020-11-24       Impact factor: 2.486

9.  Institutional review boards: Challenges and opportunities.

Authors:  Ravindra B Ghooi
Journal:  Perspect Clin Res       Date:  2014-04
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.