Readability of patient information can be improved

Danish Medical Journal

Volumn 59, Issue 5, 2012, Pages

  Pilegaard, Morten ^a   Ravn, Hanne Berg ^b  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b AARHUS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; COMPREHENSION; CONTENT ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INSTITUTIONAL ETHICS; INTERVENTION STUDY; INTERVIEW; NOMENCLATURE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT INFORMATION; PROCESS DESIGN; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; READING; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; COMMUNICATION DISORDER; DENMARK; ETHICS; EVALUATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; STANDARD;

COMMUNICATION BARRIERS; COMPREHENSION; CONSENT FORMS; DENMARK; ETHICAL REVIEW; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 84865319502     PISSN: None     EISSN: 22451919     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Holm S. The Danish research ethics committee system. Overview and critical assessment. Research involving human participants V2. Online Ethics Center at the National Academy of Engineering, 2007. www. onlineethics.org/cms/8082.aspx (4 Sep 2011).
2. Mackenzie IS, Wei L, Rutherford D et al. Promoting public awareness of randomised clinical trails using the media. The "Get Randomised" campaign. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2010;69:128-35.
3. Lægemiddelindustriforeningen and Dansk Biotek. Resultater fra Lifs og Dansk Bioteks undersøgelse af kliniske forskningsaktiviteter i Danmark 2009. www.biopeople.dk/fileadmin/filer/Per/klinisk_forskning_i_ danmark_2009_lif_og_dansk_biotek.pdf. (5 May 2011).
4. Michie S, Lester K. Words matter: increasing the implementation of clinical guidelines. Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:367-70.
5. Matiasek J, Wynia MK. Reconceptualizing the informed consent process at eight innovtive hospitals. J Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2008;34:127-37.
6. McClean KL, Card SE. Informed consent skills in internal medicine residency: How are residents taught, and what do they learn? Acad Med 2004;79:128-33.
7. 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 (9): e13-4.
8. Paris A, Nogueira GCD, 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.
9. 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.
10. Michie S, Lester K. Words matter: increasing the implementation of clinical guidelines. Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:367-70.
11. Davis TC, Holcombre RF, Berkel HJ. Informed consent for clinical trials. A comparative study of standard versus simplified forms. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:668-74.
12. Bjørn E, Rossel P, Holm P. Can the written information to research subjects be improved? An empirical study. J Med Ethics 1999;25:263-7.
13. Stead E, 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;31:664-9.
14. Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research. JAMA 2004; 92:1593-601.
15. Hammerschmidt DE, Keane MA. Impact on readability of consent forms for research. Am J Med Sci 1992;304:348-51.
16. Pandiya A. Readability and comprehensibility of informed consent forms for clinical trials. Perspect Clin Res 2010;1:98-100.
17. Askehave I, Zethsen KK. PIL of the month-a study of best practice in patient information leaflet. J Appl Ling Prof Pract 2010;7:97-120.