Easy-to-Read Informed Consent Forms for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Clinical Trials

Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 183-189

  Denzen, Ellen M ^a   Burton Santibáñez, Martha E ^a   Moore, Heather ^a   Foley, Amy ^a   Gersten, Iris D ^b   Gurgol, Cathy ^b   Majhail, Navneet S ^c,d   Spellecy, Ryan ^e   Horowitz, Mary M ^f   Murphy, Elizabeth A ^a  

^a NATIONAL MARROW DONOR PROGRAM   (United States)

^b EMMES CORPORATION   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^d CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL BLOOD AND MARROW TRANSPLANT RESEARCH   (United States)

^e Medical College of Wisconsin Center for the Study of Bioethics   (United States)

^f MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical trials; Health literacy; Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; Informed consent; Legibility; Readability

Indexed keywords

CELL TRANSPLANTATION; COMPREHENSION; EASY TO READ INFORMED CONSENT; HEMATOPOIETIC CELL TRANSPLANTATION; HUMAN; INFORMATION; INFORMED CONSENT; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; LANGUAGE; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); PATIENT SATISFACTION; READING; REVIEW;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; MEDICAL RECORDS; NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE (U.S.); NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE (U.S.); UNITED STATES;

EID: 84855597249     PISSN: 10838791     EISSN: 15236536     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2011.07.022     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Comprehensive Working Group on Informed Consent in Cancer Clinical Trials for the National Cancer Institute: Recommendations for the Development of Informed Consent Documents for Cancer Clinical Trials. NCI, NIH Publication No. 98-4355, 1998. Available at: (Accessed 3/19/2010). http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/understanding/simplification-of-informed-consent-docs.
2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Human Research Protections. (November 2008). OHRP Informed Consent Frequently Asked Questions. Available at: (Accessed 7/1/2010). http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/informconsfaq.html.
3. 45 CFR 46. 116: Protection of Human Subjects; Revised 6/18/1991.
4. Tait A., Voepel-Lewis T., Malviya S., Philipson S. Improving the readability and processability of a pediatric informed consent document: effect on parents' understanding. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005, 159:347-352.
5. 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.
6. de Witte T., Hermans J., Vossen J., et al. Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes and secondary acute myeloid leukaemias: a report on behalf of the Chronic Leukaemia Working Party of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT). Br J Haematol 2000, 110:620-630.
7. Foltz A., Sullivan J. Reading level, learning presentation preference, and desire for information among cancer patients. J Cancer Educ 1996, 11:32-38.
8. Socie G., Stone J.V., Wingard J.R., et al. Long-term survival and late deaths after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. NEngl J Med 1999, 341:14.
9. Stevens P.E., Pletsch P.K. Ethical issues of informed consent: mothers' experiences enrolling their children in bone marrow transplantation research. Cancer Nurs 2002, 25:81-87.
10. Weiss B., Hart G., McGee D.E., D'Estelle S. Health status of illiterate adults: relation between literacy and health status among persons with low literacy skills. J Am Board Fam Pract 1992, 5:257-264.
11. Singer D.A., Donnelly M.B., Messerschmidt G.L. Informed consent for bone marrow transplantation: identification of relevant information by referring physicians. Bone Marrow Transplant 1990, 6:431.
12. von Wagner C., Semmler C., Good A., Wardle J. Health literacy and self-efficacy for participating in colorectal cancer screening: the role of information processing. Patient Educ Couns 2009, 75:352-357.
13. Beardsley E., Jefford M., Mileshkin L. Longer consent forms for clinical trials compromise patient understanding: so why are they lengthening?. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25:13-14.
14. Davis T., Holcombe R., Berkel H., et al. Informed consent for clinical trials: a comparative study of standard versus simplified forms. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998, 90:668-674.
15. Berger O., Gronberg B.H., Sand K., Kaasa S., Loge J.H. The length of consent documents in oncological trials is doubled in twenty years. Ann Oncol 2009, 20:379.
16. Coyne C.A., 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. Doak C., Doak L., Root J. Teaching Patients with Low Literacy Skills 2007, J.B. Lippencott Company, Philadelphia.
18. Davis T., Williams M., Marin E., Parker R.M., Glass J. Health literacy and cancer communication. CA Cancer J Clin 2002, 52:134-149.
19. Institute for Healthcare Advancement. Health Literacy: Bridging Research and Practice. La Habra, CA: Institute for Healthcare Advancement. Available at: (Accessed 8/1/09). http://www.iha4health.org/.
20. Burman W.J., Reves R.R., Cohn D.L., Schooley R.T. Breaking the camel's back: multicenter clinical trials and local institutional review boards. Ann Intern Med 2001, 134:152-157.
21. Simplification of Informed Consent Documents. National Cancer Institute, U.S. National Institutes of Health. Available at: (Accessed 9/10/2010). http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/understanding/simplification-of-informed-consent-docs/page3.
22. dos Santos Lonsdale M., Dyson M., Raynolds L. Reading in examination-type situations: the effects of text layout on performance. J Res Read 2006, 29:433-453.
23. Mayer G., Villaire M. Health Literacy in Primary Care: A Clinician's Guide 2007, Springer Publishing Company, New York. 1st ed.
24. Foster J. A study of the legibility of one- and two-column layouts for BPS publications. Bull Br Psychol Soc 1970, 23:113-114.
25. Ralph J. A geriatric visual concern: the need for publishing guidelines. J Am Optom Assoc 1982, 53:43-50.
26. Guthrie J., Kirsch I. Distinctions between reading comprehension and locating information in text. J Edu Psychol 1987, 79:220-227.
27. The Maine CDC Institutional Review Board. Suggestions on Improving the Readability of a Consent Form. Available at: (Accessed 8/12/2009). http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/boh/IRB/IRB%2520intranet/readguid.pdf.
28. Hartley J. Designing instructional and informational text. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology 2004, 917-947. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. 2nd ed. D.H. Jonassen (Ed.).
29. Guidelines for Writing Informed Consent Documents. National Institutes of Health, Office of Human Subjects Research, 2006. Available at: (Accessed 8/12/2009). http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/info/sheet6.html.
30. The Health Literacy Style Manual 2005, Southern Institute on Children and Families, Covering Kids and Families, Columbia, SC.
31. The Plain Language Action and Information Network (PLAIN). What is plain language? Available at: (Accessed 3/8/2010). http://www.plainlanguage.gov/whatisPL/index.cfm.
32. Hammerschmidt D., Keane M. Institutional Review Board (IRB) review lacks impact on readability of consent forms for research. Am J Med Sci 1992, 304:348-351.
33. Clear and Simple: Developing Effective Print Materials for Low-Literate Readers. NCI, NIH Publication No. 95-3594, 1994. Available at: (Accessed 8/16/2009). http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/oc/clear-and-simple/page1.
34. Raich P.C., Plomer K.D., Coyne C.A. Literacy, comprehension, and informed consent in clinical research. Cancer Invest 2001, 19:437-445.
35. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Available at: (Accessed 8/12/09). http://www.health.gov/communication/literacy/quickguide/factsbasic.htm#one.
36. Kirsch I., Jungeblut A., Jenkins L., Kolstad A. Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Results of the National Adult Literacy Survey 1993, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
37. Kutner M., Greenberg E., Jin Y., et al. The Health Literacy of America's Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy 2006, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
38. Sharp S.M. Consent documents for oncology trials: does anybody read these things?. Am J Clin Oncol 2004, 27:570-575.
39. Flory J., Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA 2004, 292:1593-1601.
40. Grossman S.A., 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, 12:2211-2215.
41. Silverman H., Hull S.C., Sugarman J. Variability among institutional review boards' decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Crit Care Med 2001, 29:235.
42. Appelbaum P.S., Lidz C.W., Meisel A. Informed Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice 1987, Oxford University Press, New York.
43. Wright J., Whelan T., Schiff S., et al. Why cancer patients enter randomized clinical trials: exploring the factors that influence their decision. J Clin Oncol 2004, 22:4312-4318.