Informed consent for clinical trials: A comparative study of standard versus simplified forms

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 90, Issue 9, 1998, Pages 668-674

  Davis, Terry C ^a   Holcombe, Randall F ^b   Berkel, Hans J ^a   Pramanik, Sumona ^a   Divers, Stephen G ^a  

^a LOUISIANA STATE UNIV MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT ATTITUDE; READING; STANDARD;

EID: 0032490122     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/90.9.668     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Department of Health and Human Services. Federal Register 56 (June 18, 1991) 45 CFR:46.101-46.124.
2. Taub HA, Baker MT, Sturr JF. Informed consent for research: effects of readability, participant age, and education. J Am Geriatr Soc 1986;34:601-6.
3. Miller CK, O'Donnell DC, Searight HR, Barbarash RA. The Deaconess Informed Consent Comprehension Test: an assessment tool for clinical research subjects. Pharmacotherapy 1996;16:872-8.
4. Taub HA. Comprehension of informed consent for research: issues and directions for future study. IRB 1986;8:7-10.
5. Hammerschmidt DE, Keane MA. Institutional Review Board (IRB) review lacks impact on the readability of consent forms for research. Amer J Med Sci 1992;304:348-51.
6. Taub HA, Baker MT. The effect of repeated testing upon comprehension of informed consent materials by elderly volunteers. Experimental Aging Research 1983;9:135-8.
7. NIH Guide, vol 25, No. 32 (RFA OD97001) "Informed consent in research involving human participants." Issued Sept. 27, 1996, by National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
8. Young DR, Hooker DT, Freeberg FE. Informed consent documents: increasing comprehension by reducing reading level. IRB 1990;12:1-6.
9. Morrow GR. How readable are subject consent forms? JAMA 1980;244:56-8.
10. Grundner TM. On the readability of surgical consent forms. N Engl J Med 1980;302:900-2.
11. Williams MV, Parker RM, Baker DW, Parikh NS, Pitkin K, Coates WC, et al. Inadequate functional health literacy among participants at two public hospitals. JAMA 1995;274:1677-82.
12. Meade C, Howser DM. Consent forms: how to determine and improve their readability. Oncol Nurs Forum 1992;19:1523-8.
13. Miles S, Davis T. Patients who can't read. Implications for the health care system. JAMA 1995;274:1719-20.
14. Davis T, Crouch M, Wills G, Miller S, Abdehou D. The gap between participant reading comprehension and the readability of participant education materials. J Fam Pract 1990;31:533-8.
15. Davis TC, Mayeaux FJ, Fredrickson D, Bocchini A Jr., Jackson RH, Murphy PW. Reading ability of parents compared with reading level of pediatric participant education materials. Pediatrics 1994;93:460-8.
16. Brandes WL, editor. Literacy, health, and the law: an exploration of the law and the plight of marginal readers within the health care system: advocating for participants and providers. Philadelphia: Health Promotion Council of Southeastern Pennsylvania, Inc., 1996.
17. Hopper KD, TenHave TR, Hartzel J. Informed consent forms for clinical and research imaging procedures: how much do participants understand? AJR 1995;164:493-6.
18. Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JH. Teaching participants with low-literacy skills. 2nd Ed. Philadelphia. PA: JB Lippincott, 1996.
19. LoVerda ME, Prochazka AV, Byyny RL. Research consent forms: continued unreadability and increasing length. J Gen Int Med 1989;4:410-2.
20. Jubelirer SJ. Level of reading difficulty in educational pamphlets and informed consent documents for cancer patients. West Virginia Med J 1991; 87:554-7.
21. Kirsch I, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L, Kolstad A. Adult literacy in America: a first look at the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington (DC): National Center for Education Statistics, US Dept of Education, 1993.
22. Rivera R, Reed JS, Menius D. Evaluating the readability of informed consent forms used in contraceptive clinical trials. Intern J Gyneacol Obst 1992;38:227-30.
23. Tarnowski KJ, Allen DM, Mayhall C, Kelly PA. Readability of pediatric biomedical research informed consent forms. Pediatrics 1990;85:58-63.
24. Cassileth BR, Zupkis RV, Sutton-Smith K, March V. Informed consent -why are its goals imperfectly realized? N Eng J Med 1980;302:896-900.
25. Davis TC, Fredrickson DD, Arnold C, Murphy PW, Herbst M, Bocchini J. A polio immunization pamphlet with increased appeal and simplified language does not improve comprehension to an acceptable level. Patient Educ Couns 1998;33:25-37.
26. Davis TC, Bocchini JA Jr., Fredrickson D, Arnold C, Mayeaux EJ, Murphy PW, et al. Parent comprehension of polio vaccine information pamphlets. Pediatrics 1996;97:804-10.
27. Doak LG, Doak CC, Meade CD. Strategies to improve cancer education materials. Oncol Nurs Forum 1996;23:1305-12.
28. Michielutte R, Bahnson J, Dignan MB, Schroeder EM. The use of illustrations and narrative text style to improve readability of a health education brochure. J Cancer Educ 1992;7:251-60.
29. Meade CD, Byrd JC, Lee M. Improving patient comprehension of literature on smoking. Am J Public Health 1989;79:1411-2.
30. Meade CD, McKinney WP, Barnas GP. Educating patients with limited literacy skills: the effectiveness of printed and videotaped materials about colon cancer. Am J Public Health 1994;84:119-21.
31. Meade CD, Howser DM. Consent forms: how to determine and improve their readability. Oncol Nurs Forum 1992;19:1523-8.
32. Davis TC, Long SW, Jackson RH, Mayeaux EJ, George RB, Murphy PW, et al. Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine: a shortened screening instrument. Fam Med 1993;25:391-5.
33. Slosson RJ. Slosson oral reading tests revised handbook. East Aurora (NY): Slosson Educational Pub, 1990.
34. Weiss BD, Coyne C. Communicating with patients who can not read. N Engl J Med 1997;337:272-4.
35. Parker RM, Baker DW, Williams MV, Nurss JR. The test of functional health literacy in adults: a new instrument for measuring patients' literacy skills. J Gen Intern Med 1995;10:537-42.
36. Wampler BE, Williams MP. Grammatik for windows. San Francisco: Reference Software International, 1991.
37. Gunning R. The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill 1974.
38. Flesch R. The art of readable writing. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.
39. Parikh NS, Parker RM, Nurss JR, Baker DW, Williams MV. Shame and health literacy: the unspoken connection. Patient Educ Couns 1996;27: 33-9.
40. Davis TC, Arnold C, Berkel HJ, Nandy I, Jackson RH, Glass J. Knowledge and attitude on screening mammography among low-literate, low-income women. Cancer 1996;78:1912-20.
41. Williams MV, Baker DW, Parker RM, Nurss JR. Relationship of functional health literacy to patients' knowledge of their chronic disease: a study of patients with hypertension and diabetes. Arch Intern Med 1998;158: 166-72.
42. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Thirel EC, Sem FW, Woermke DE. Presenting clinical trial information: a comparison of methods. Patient Educ Couns 1995;25:92-107.
43. Cassileth BR, Lusk EY, Miller DS, Witz S. Attitudes toward clinical trials among patients and the public. JAMA 1982;248:968-70.
44. Rudd RE, Comings JP. Learner developed materials: an empowering product. Health Educ Q 1994;21:313-27.
45. Reid JC, Klachko DM, Kardash CA, Robinson RD, Scholes R, Howard D. Why people don't learn from diabetes literature: influence of text and reader characteristics. Patient Educ Couns 1995;25:31-8.
46. Turner S. Maher E, Young T, Young J, Vaughan Hudson G. What are the information priorities for cancer patients involved in treatment decisions? An experienced surrogate study in Hodgkin's disease. Br J Cancer 1996; 73:222-7.