Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 348, Issue 8, 2003, Pages 721-726

  Paasche Orlow, Michael K ^a,b,c   Taylor, Holly A ^b   Brancati, Frederick L ^a,b  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERNET; MEASUREMENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SCHOOL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING; RESEARCH; SCORING SYSTEM; STANDARD;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL APPROACH;

COMPREHENSION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; GUIDELINES; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; SCHOOLS, MEDICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0037456358     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa021212     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Fitzmaurice DA, Adams JL. A systematic review of patient information leaflets for hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 2000;14: 259-62.
2. Andrus MR, Roth MT. Health literacy: a review. Pharmacotherapy 2002;22:282-302.
3. Communicating with patients who have limited literacy skills: report of the National Work Group on Literacy and Health. J Fam Pract 1998;46:168-76.
4. Kirsch IS, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L, Kolstad A. Adult literacy in America: a first look at the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, D.C.: Office of Education Research and Improvement, Department of Education, 1993.
5. Ad Hoc Committee on Health Literacy for the Council on Scientific Affairs. Health literacy: report of the Council on Scientific Affairs. JAMA 1999;281:552-7.
6. Baker DW. Access to health care and preventable hospitalizations. JAMA 1995; 274:1759.
7. Kickbusch I, Ratzan SC. Health literacy: making a difference in the USA. J Health Commun 2001;6:87-8.
8. Rudd RE, Moeykens BA, Colton TC. Health and literacy: a review of medical and public health literature. In: Comings J, Garners B, Smith C, eds. Health and literacy. New York: Jossey-Bass, 1999.
9. Williams MV, Baker DW, Honig EG, Lee TM, Nowlan A. Inadequate literacy is a barrier to asthma knowledge and self-care. Chest 1998;114:1008-15.
10. Health Literacy Project. Literacy, health, and the law. Philadelphia: Health Promotion Council of Southeastern Pennsylvania, 1996.
11. Pape T. Legal and ethical considerations of informed consent. AORN J 1997; 65:1122-7.
12. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
13. The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Bethesda, Md.: National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1978.
14. Sugarman J, McCrory DC, Powell D, et al. Empirical research on informed consent: an annotated bibliography. Hastings Cent Rep 1999;29(1):S1-S42.
15. Protection of Human Subjects. C.F.R. tide 45, §§ 46.109 and 50.20 (1993).
16. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Human Research Protections. Institutional review board guidebook. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1993.
17. NIH awards to medical schools by rank. Bethesda, Md.: National Institutes of Health, 2002. (Accessed January 28, 2003, at http:// grants2.nih.gov/grants/award/rank/ medttlnod.htm.)
18. The state of literacy in America. Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Literacy, 2003. (Accessed January 28, 2003, at http:// www.nifl.gov/reders/reder.htm.)
19. OHKP compliance activities: determination letters. Washington, D.C.: Office for Human Research Protections, 2002. (Accessed January 28, 2003, at http://ohrp. osophs.dhhs.gov/detrm_letrs/lindex.htm.)
20. Protection of Human Subjects. C.F.R. title 45, §46 (1993).
21. Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP, Rogers RL, Chissom BS. Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch report 8-75. Memphis: Naval Air Station, 1975.
22. Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JH. Teaching patients with low literacy skills. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1996.
23. Hammerschmidt DE, Keane MA. Institutional Review Board (IRB) review lacks impact on the readability of consent forms for research. Am J Med Sci 1992;304:348-51.
24. Young DR, Hooker DT, Freeberg FE. Informed consent documents: increasing comprehension by reducing reading level. IRB 1990;12(3):1-5.
25. Grossman SA, Piantadosi S, Covahey C. Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families? J Clin Oncol 1994;12:2211-5.
26. White LJ, Jones JS, Felton CW, Pool LC. Informed consent for medical research: common discrepancies and readability. Acad Emerg Med 1996;3:745-50.
27. Bjorn E, Rossel P, Holm S. Can the written information to research subjects be improved? An empirical study. J Med Ethics 1999;25:263-7.
28. Philipson SJ, Doyle MA, Gabram SG, Nightingale C, Philipson EH. Informed consent for research: a study to evaluate readability and processability to effect change. J Investig Med 1995;43:459-67.
29. Taylor KM, Bezjak A, Hunter R, Fraser S. Informed consent for clinical trials: is simpler better? J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:644-5.
30. Taylor HA. Barriers to informed consent. Semin Oncol Nurs 1999;15:89-95.
31. Davis TC, Holcombe RF, Berkel HJ, Pramanik S, Divers SG. Informed consent for clinical trials: a comparative study of standard versus simplified forms. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:668-74.
32. Raich PC, Plomer KD, Coyne CA. Literacy, comprehension, and informed consent in clinical research. Cancer Invest 2001;19: 437-45.
33. Jimison HB, Sher PP, Appleyard R, LeVernois Y. The use of multimedia in the informed consent process. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998;5:245-56.
34. Doak CC, Doak LG, Friedell GH, Meade CD. Improving comprehension for cancer patients with low literacy skills: strategies for clinicians. CA Cancer J Clin 1998;48: 151-62.
35. Heinze-Lacey B, Saunders C, Sugar A. Improving the readability of informed consent documents. IRB 1993;15(3):10-11.
36. Meade CD, Howser DM. Consent forms: how to determine and improve their readability. Oncol Nurs Forum 1992;19:1523-8.
37. Peterson BT, Clancy SJ, Champion K, McLarty JW. Improving readability of consent forms: what the computers may not tell you. IRB 1992;14(6):6-8.
38. Barbour GL, Blumenkrantz MJ. Videotape aids informed consent decision. JAMA 1978;240:2741-2.
39. Padberg RM, Flach J. National efforts to improve the informed consent process. Semin Oncol Nuts 1999;15:138-44.
40. Lehmann LS, Brancati FL, Chen M-C, Roter D, Dobs AS. The effect of bedside case presentations on patients' perceptions of their medical care. N Engl J Med 1997;336: 1150-5.