An empirical study on the preferred size of the participant information sheet in research

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 37, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 557-562

  Antoniou, Evangelia E ^a   Draper, Heather ^a   Reed, Keith ^a,b   Burls, Amanda ^c   Southwood, Taunton R ^a,d   Zeegers, Maurice P ^a,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b The Twins and Multiple Births Association (TAMBA)   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d BIRMINGHAM CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^e MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERNET; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESEARCH ETHICS; STATISTICS;

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERNET; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 81555214470     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2010.041871     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Anon. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Med Etika Bioet 2002;9:12-9.
2. Jefford M, Moore R. Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:485-93.
3. National Research Ethics Service. Information sheets and consent forms: guidance for researchers and reviewers. 2009. http://www.nres.npsa.nhs.uk (accessed 2 Jan 2011).
4. Bjorn E, Rossel P, Holm S. Can the written information to research subjects be improved?dan empirical study. J Med Ethics 1999;25:263-7.
5. Beardsley E, Jefford M, Mileshkin L. Longer consent forms for clinical trials compromise patient understanding: so why are they lengthening? J Clin Oncol 2007;25:e13-14.
6. Paris A, Nogueira da Gama Chaves D, Cornu C, et al. Improvement of the comprehension of written information given to healthy volunteers in biomedical research: a single-blind randomized controlled study. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2007;21:207-14.
7. Holmes-Rovner M, Stableford S, Fagerlin A, et al. Evidence-based patient choice: a prostate cancer decision aid in plain language. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2005;5:16.
8. Michie S, Lester K. Words matter: increasing the implementation of clinical guidelines. Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:367-70.
9. Davis TC, Holcombe RF, Berkel HJ. Informed consent for clinical trials: a comparative study of standard versus simplified forms. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:668-74.
10. Verheggen FW, Jonkers R, Kok G. Patients' perceptions on informed consent and the quality of information disclosure in clinical trials. Patient Educ Couns 1996;29:137-53.
11. Morrow GR. How readable are subject consent forms? JAMA 1980;244:56-8.
12. Silverman HJ, Luce JM, Lanken PN, et al. Recommendations for informed consent forms for critical care clinical trials. Crit Care Med 2005;33:867-82.
13. Sharp SM. Consent documents for oncology trials: does anybody read these things? Am J Clin Oncol 2004;27:570-5.
14. Ferguson PR. Patients' perceptions of information provided in clinical trials. J Med Ethics 2002;28:45-8.
15. Olver IN, Buchanan L, Laidlaw C, et al. The adequacy of consent forms for informing patients entering oncological clinical trials. Ann Oncol 1995;6:867-70.
16. Antoniou E. The Twins and Multiple Births Association heritability study (TAMBAhs). 2008. http://www.tambahs.bham.ac.uk/ (accessed 2 Jan 2011).
17. Zeng-Treitler Q, Kim H, Goryachev S, et al. Text characteristics of clinical reports and their implications for the readability of personal health records. Stud Health Technol Inform 2007;129:1117-21.
18. Gemoets D, Rosemblat G, Tse T, et al. Assessing readability of consumer health information: an exploratory study. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004;107:869-73.
19. Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Brancati FL. Readability standards for informedconsent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med 2003;348:721-6.
20. Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP, Rogers RL, et al. Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Memphis: Naval Air Station, 1975.
21. Kim H, Goryachev S, Rosemblat G, et al. Beyond surface characteristics: a new health text-specific readability measurement. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007:418-22.
22. Proctor J. Key pharmaceutical documents I: the patient information sheet. J Eur Med Writers Assoc 1999;8.
23. Ziefle M. Effects of display resolution on visual performance. Hum Factors 1998;40:554-68.
24. Carver RP. Reading rate: a review of research and theory. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1990.