Consent form heterogeneity in cancer trials: The cooperative group and institutional review board gap

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 105, Issue 13, 2013, Pages 947-953

  Koyfman, Shlomo A ^a   Agre, Patricia ^b   Carlisle, Regina ^c   Classen, Lorianne ^d   Cheatham, Chesley ^d   Finley, Joanne P ^e   Kuhrik, Nancy ^f   Kuhrik, Marilee ^f   Mangskau, Toni Kay ^g   O'Neill, Joann ^f   Reddy, Chandana P ^a   Kodish, Eric ^a   McCabe, Mary S ^b  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF CLEVELAND   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^e JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine   (United States)

^g MAYO CLINIC CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CANCER RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMED CONSENT; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COMPREHENSION; CONSENT FORMS; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE (U.S.); NEOPLASMS; RESEARCH DESIGN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84880200258     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djt143     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283(20):2701-2711.
2. Daugherty CK. Impact of therapeutic research on informed consent and the ethics of clinical trials: a medical oncology perspective. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(5):1601-1617.
3. Grossman SA, 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(10):2211-2215.
4. Jefford M, Moore R. Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(5):485-493.
5. Joseph RR. Viewpoints and concerns of a clinical trial participant. Cancer. 1994;74(9 Suppl):2692-2693.
6. National Cancer Institute. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/clinical trials/conducting/simplification-of-informed-consent-docs. Accessed May 31, 2013.
7. Sharp SM. Consent documents for oncology trials: does anybody read these things? Am J Clin Oncol. 2004;27(6):570-575.
8. Bjorn E, Rossel R, Holm S. Can the written information to research subjects be improved?-an empirical study. J Med Ethics. 1999;25(3):263-267.
9. 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(5): 836-842.
10. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 2001;358(9295):1772-1777.
11. Meade CD, Howser DM. Consent forms: how to determine and improve their readability. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1992;19(10):1523-1528.
12. Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Brancati FL. Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(8):721-726.
13. Simes RJ, Tatersall MH, Coates AS, Raghavan D, Solomon HJ, Smartt H. Randomised comparison of procedures for obtaining informed consent in clinical trials of treatment for cancer. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 1986;293(6554):1065-1068.
14. Taylor KM, Bezjak A, Hunter R, Fraser S. Informed consent for clinical trials: is simpler better? J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(9):644-645.
15. Padberg RM, Flach J. National efforts to improve the informed consent process. Sem Oncol Nurs. 1999;15(2):138-144.
16. Agre P, Rapkin B. Improving informed consent: a comparison of four consent tools. IRB. 2003;25(6):1-7.
17. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Available at: http://www.rtog.org/ ClinicalTrials/ProtocolTable.aspx. Accessed May 31, 2013.
18. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32(3): 2211-2233.
19. Glinsky A. How valid is the Flesch readability formula? Am Psychologist. 1948;3:261.
20. National Assessment of AdultLiteracy. National Center for Educational Statistics, US Department of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/naal/. Accessed May 16, 2013.
21. Kirsch IS, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L, et al. (1993). Adult literacy in America: a first look at the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education.
22. 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-e14.
23. Adler, JM. Making the ICD more concise: revising the informed consent template. http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/ctac/0711/Making%20ICD% 20More%20Consise.pdf. Accessed May 16, 2013.