Improving communication when seeking informed consent: A randomised controlled study of a computer-based method for providing information to prospective clinical trial participants

Medical Journal of Australia

Volumn 192, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 388-392

  Karunaratne, Asuntha S ^a   Korenman, Stanley G ^b   Thomas, Samantha L ^a   Myles, Paul S ^a,c   Komesaroff, Paul A ^a,c  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c ALFRED HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPUTER SYSTEM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIABETES MELLITUS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL INFORMATION; OPEN STUDY; PAPER; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SCORING SYSTEM; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL AID; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; MIDDLE AGED; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

ADULT; AGED; COMMUNICATION; COMPUTERS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED;

EID: 77951904708     PISSN: 0025729X     EISSN: 13265377     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb03561.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Davis TC, Holcombe RF, Berkel HJ, et al. Informed consent for clinical trials: a comparative study of standard versus simplified forms. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90: 668-674.
2. Stead M, Eadie D, Gordon D, Angus K. "Hello, hello - it's English I speak!": a qualitative exploration of patients' understanding of the science of clinical trials. J Med Ethics 2005; 31: 664-669. (Pubitemid 41701039)
3. Dixon-Woods M, Williams SJ, Jackson CJ, et al. Soc Sci Med 2006; 62: 2742.
4. Molyneux CS, Peshu N, Marsh K. Trust and informed consent: insights from community members on the Kenyan coast. Soc Sci Med 2005; 61: 1463-1473. (Pubitemid 40991271)
5. Cassileth BR, Zupkis RV, Sutton-Smith K, March V. Informed consent - why are its goals imperfectly realised? N Engl J Med 1980; 302: 896-900. (Pubitemid 10143987)
6. Wendler D, Rackoff JE. Informed consent and respecting the autonomy: what's a signature got to do with it? IRB 2001; 23: 1-4.
7. Cheng JD, Hitt J, Koczwara B, et al. Impact of quality of life on patient expectations regarding phase I clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 421-428. (Pubitemid 30056433)
8. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Thiel EC, Sem FW, Woermke DE. Presenting clinical trial information: a comparison of methods. Patient Educ Couns 1995; 25: 97-107.
9. Dunn LB, Lindamer LA, Palmer BW, et al. Improving understanding of research consent in middle-aged and elderly patients with psychotic disorders. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2002; 10: 142-150.
10. Raich PC, Plomer KD, Coyne CA. Literacy, comprehension, and informed consent in clinical research. Cancer Invest 2001; 19: 437-445. (Pubitemid 32525190)
11. Stalonas PM, Keane TM, Foy DW. Alcohol education for inpatient alcoholics: a comparison of live, videotape and written presentation modalities. Addict Behav 1979; 4: 223-229.
12. Fureman I, Meyers K, McLellan T, et al. AIDS Educ Prev 1997; 9: 330-341.
13. Gagliano ME. A literature review on the efficacy of video in patient education. J Med Educ 1988; 63: 785-792.
14. Benson PR, Roth LH, Appelbaum PS, et al. Information disclosure, subject understanding, and informed consent in psychiatric research. Law Hum Behav 1988; 12: 455-475.
15. Wirshing DA, Sergi MJ, Mintz JA. Videotape intervention to enhance the informed consent process for medical and psychiatric treatment research. Am J Psychiatry 2005; 162: 186.
16. Coyne CA, Xu R, Raich P, et al. 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.
17. Gray SH. The effect of sequence control on computer assisted learning. J Comput Based Instr 1987; 14: 54-56.
18. Kinzie MB, Sullivan HJ, Berdel RL. Learner control and achievement in science computer assisted instruction. J Educ Psychol 1988; 80: 299-303.
19. Watters J. Information retrieval and the virtual document. J Am Soc Inf Sci 1999; 50: 1028-1029.
20. Lynch PJ, Horton S. Imprudent linking weaves a tangled Web. Computer 1997; 30: 115-117.
21. Lawless KA, Kulikowich JM. Understanding hypertext navigation through cluster analysis. J Educ Comput Res 1996; 14: 385-399. (Pubitemid 126176488)
22. Ancker J. Assessing patient comprehension of informed consent forms. Control Clin Trials 2004; 25: 72-74.
23. Agre P, McKee K, Gargon N, Kurtz RC. Patient satisfaction with an informed consent process. Cancer Pract 1997; 5: 162-167. (Pubitemid 27224443)
24. Akkad A, Jackson C, Kenyon S, et al. Informed consent for elective and emergency surgery: questionnaire study. BJOG 2004; 111: 1133-1138.
25. Cox K. Informed consent and decision-making: patients' experiences of the process of recruitment to phases I and II anti-cancer drug trials. Patient Educ Couns 2002; 46: 31-38. (Pubitemid 34136106)
26. Guarino P, Elbourne D, Carpenter J, Peduzzi P. Consumer involvement in consent document development: a multicenter cluster randomized trial to assess study participants' understanding. Clin Trials 2006; 3: 19-30. (Pubitemid 43311971)
27. Calisir F, Gurel Z. Influence of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on reading comprehension, browsing and perceived control. Comput Human Behav 2003; 19: 135-145.
28. Kerrigan DD, Thevasagayam RS, Woods TO, et al. Who's afraid of informed consent? BMJ 1993; 306: 298-300.
29. Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA 2004; 292: 1593-1601. (Pubitemid 39314966)
30. Jeste DV, Palmer BW, Golshan S, et al. Multimedia consent for research in people with schizophrenia and normal subjects: a randomized controlled trial. Schizophr Bull 2008; 35: 719-729.
31. Limacher MC. What prevents women from participating in research studies? J Watch Womens Health 2007; June 28: 3.