Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families?

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 12, Issue 10, 1994, Pages 2211-2215

  Grossman, Stuart A ^a   Plantadosi, Steven ^a   Covahey, Charles ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER RESEARCH; CHILDHOOD CANCER; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; ONCOLOGY; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL; PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING;

EID: 0027943564     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1994.12.10.2211     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. US Department of Health and Human Services Section 46.116
2. US Department of Education: Digest of Education Statistics 1985-1986. Washington, DC, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, US Department of Education Center for Statistics, 1986
3. Davis TC, Crouch MA, Wills G, et al: The gap between patient reading comprehension and the readability of patient education materials. J Fam Pract 31:533-538, 1990
4. Davis TC, Mayeaux EJ, Fredrickson D, et al: Reading ability of parents compared with reading level of pediatric patient education materials. Pediatrics 93:460-468, 1993
5. Wampler BE: Grammatik IV Users Guide. San Francisco, CA, Reference Software International, 1989
6. Flesch RR: A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 32:2211-2223, 1948
7. Glinsky AS: How valid is the Flesch readability formula? Am Psychol 3:261, 1948
8. Fry E: A readability formula that saves time. J Reading 11:513-516, 1968
9. Gunning R: The Fog index after twenty years. J Business Communicat 6:3-13, 1968
10. Beauchamp RL, Childress JF: Principles of Biomedical Ethics (ed 3). New York, NY, Oxford Press, 1989
11. Chapter 689, Article 2:123, Laws of Minnesota, 1988
12. Meade CD, Byrd JC: Patient literacy and the readability of smoking education literature. Am J Public Health 79:204-206, 1989
13. Streiff LD: Can clients understand our instruction? Image J Nurs Scholar 18:48-52, 1986
14. Boyd MD, Citro K: Cardiac patient education literature: Can patients read what we give them? J Card Rehab 3:513-516, 1983
15. Swanson JM, Forrest K, Ledbetter C, et al: Readability of commercial and generic contraceptive instructions. Image J Nurs Scholar 22:96-100, 1990
16. Ferguson J: AIDS and you: A brochure for the at-risk/poor reader. Natl Forum Spec Educ J 1:52-57, 1989-1990
17. Leichter S, Nieman J, Moore R, et al: Readability of selfcare instructional pamphlets for diabetic patients. Diabetes Today 4:627-630, 1981
18. Powers RD: Emergency department patient literacy and the readability of patient-directed materials. Ann Emerg Med 17:124-126, 1988
19. Meade CD, Diekman J, Thornhill D: Readability of American Cancer Society patient education literature. Oncol Nurs Forum 19:51-55, 1992
20. American Cancer Society: Achieving the year 2000 goal. Findings and recommendations of the 1987-1988 public participation hearings of the national cancer advisory board on cancer prevention and early detection. Cancer Nurs 12:359-368, 1989
21. US Department of Health and Human Services: Readability testing in cancer communications: methods, examples, and resources for improving the readability of cancer messages and materials (NIH publication no. 81-1689). Bethesda MD, Office of Cancer Communications, National Cancer Institute, 1981
22. Doak LG, Doak CC: Lowering the silent barriers to compliance for patients with low literacy skills. Promot Health 8:6-8, 1987
23. Grudner TM: On the readability of surgical consent forms. N Engl J Med 302:900-902, 1980
24. Baker MR, Taub HA: Readability of informed consent forms for research in a Veterans Administration Medical Center. JAMA 250:2646-2648, 1983
25. Tarnowski KJ, Allen DM, Mayhall C, et al: Readability of pediatric biomedical research informed consent forms. Pediatrics 85:58-62, 1990
26. Murgatroyd RJ, Cooper RM: Readability of informed consent forms. Am J Hosp Pharm 48:2651-2, 1991
27. Hammerschmidt DE, Keane MA: Institutional review board review lacks impact on the readability of consent forms for research. Am J Med Sci 304:341-351, 1992
28. Morrow GR: How readable are consent forms? JAMA 422:56-58, 1980
29. Meade CD, Howser DM: Consent forms: How to determine and improve their readability. Oncol Nurs Forum 19:1523-1528, 1992
30. McLaughlin HG: SMOG-grading: A new readability formula. J Reading 12:641-646, 1969
31. Meade CD, Wittbrot R: Computerized readability analysis of written materials. Comput Nurs 6:30-36, 1988
32. Gibbs RD, Gibbs PL, Henrich J: Patient understanding of commonly used medical vocabulary. J Fam Pract 25:176-178, 1987
33. Muss HB, White DR, Michielutte R, et al: Written informed consent in patients with breast cancer. Cancer 43:1545-1550, 1979
34. Casselth BR, Zuplas RV, Stuton-Smith K, et al: Informed consent - Why are its goals imperfectly realized? N Engl J Med 302:896-900, 1980
35. Peterson BT, Clancy SJ, Champion K, et al: Improving readability of consent forms: What the computers may not tell you. IRB Rev Hum Subj Res 14:6-8, 1992
36. Wales JB, Treybig DL: Recent legislative trends towards protection of human subjects: Implications for gerontologists. Gerontologist 18:244-249, 1980
37. Loverde ME, Prochazka AV, Byyny RL: Research consent forms: Continued unreadability and increasing length. J Gen Intern Med 4:410-412, 1989
38. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Office of Protection From Research Risks Reports, US Government Printing Office, 1988