Informed consent document improvement does not increase patients' comprehension in biomedical research

British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Volumn 69, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 231-237

  Paris, Adeline ^a   Brandt, Christian ^b   Cornu, Catherine ^c   Maison, Patrick ^d   Thalamas, Claire ^b   Cracowski, Jean Luc ^e  

^a GRENOBLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^b INSERM   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE LYON   (France)

^d ASSISTANCE PUBLIQUE HÔPITAUX DE PARIS   (France)

^e UNIV GRENOBLE ALPES   (France)

Author keywords

Biomedical research; Comprehension; Informed consent; Questionnaire

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ADULT; AGED; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMMUNICATION; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC;

EID: 76649117812     PISSN: 03065251     EISSN: 13652125     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03565.x     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Available at http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html (last accessed A, Cracowski JL, Ravanel N, Cornu C, Gueyffier F, Deygas B, Guillot K, Bosson JL, Hommel M. Readability of informed consent forms for subjects participating in biomedical research: updating is required. Presse Med 2005 34 : 13 8.
2. Okais C, Paris A, Cracowski JL. Readability and information density in biomedical research Therapie 2007 62 : 17 21.
3. Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA 2004 292 : 1593 1601.
4. Paris A, Nogueira Da Gama Chaves D, Cornu C, Maison P, Salvat-Melis M, Ribuot C, Brandt C, Bosson JL, Hommel M, Cracowski JL. Improvement of the comprehension of written information given to healthy volunteers in biomedical research: a single-blind randomised controlled study. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2007 21 : 207 214.
5. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001 93 : 139 147.
6. Sharp SM. Consent documents for oncology trials: does anybody read these things? Am J Clin Oncol 2004 27 : 570 575.
7. Christopher PP, Foti ME, Roy-Bujnowski K, Appelbaum PS. Consent form readability and educational levels of potential participants in mental health research. Psychiatr Serv 2007 58 : 227 232.
8. Riecken HW, Ravich R. Informed consent to biomedical research in Veterans Administration Hospitals. JAMA 1982 248 : 344 348.
9. Joffe S, Cook E, Cleary P, Clark J, Weeks J. Quality of informed consent clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet 2001 358 : 1772 1777.
10. Paris A, Cracowski JL, Maison P, Radauceanu A, Cornu C, Hommel M. Impact of French 'Comites de Protection des Personnes' on the readability of informed consent documents (ICD) in biomedical research: more information, but not better information. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2005 19 : 395 399.
11. Hochhauser M. Informed consent: reading and understanding are not the same. Applied Clinical Trials Online 1 April 2004.
12. Coyne CA, Xu R, Raich P, Plomer K, Dignan M, Wenzel LB, Fairclough D, Habermann T, Schnell L, Quella S, Cella D. Randomized, controlled trial of an easy-to-read informed consent statement for clinical trial participation: a study of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2003 21 : 836 842.
13. 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 : 668 674.
14. Cohn E, Larson E. Improving participant comprehension in the informed consent process. J Nurs Scholarsh 2007 39 : 273 280.