Readability of consent form templates: A second look

IRB Ethics and Human Research

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 12-19

  Paasche Orlow, Michael K ^a   Brancati, Frederick L ^b   Taylor, Holly A ^c   Jain, Sumati ^d   Pandit, Anjali ^e   Wolf, Michael S ^e  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^d Expect Respect Program SafePlace   (United States)

^e NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPREHENSION; CONFIDENTIALITY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; RESEARCH SUBJECT; STANDARDS; UNITED STATES; ARTICLE; LEGAL ASPECT; STANDARD;

COMPREHENSION; CONFIDENTIALITY; CONSENT FORMS; HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84891698828     PISSN: 01937758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, et al. Low health literacy and health outcomes: An updated systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine 2011;155:97-107.
2. Paasche-Orlow MK, Parker RM, Gazmararian JA, et al. The prevalence of limited health literacy, journal of General Internal Medicine 2005;20:175-184;
3. Kutner M, Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., et al. The Health Literacy of America's Adults: Results From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-483). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education: National Center for Education Statistics, 2006.
4. Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: A systematic review. JAMA 2004;292:1593-1601.
5. Lidz CW. Informed consent: A critical part of modern medical research. American journal of Medical Science 2011;342:273-2. 75.
6. Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Brancati FL. Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. NEJM 2003;348:721-726.
7. The AHRQ Informed Consent and Authorization Toolkit for Minimal Risk Research, http://www.ahrq.gov/fund/informedconsent/; National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. Simplification of Informed Consent Documents, http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/patientsafety/simphfication-of- mformed-consent-docs.
8. Paasche-Orlow MK, Jacob DM, Powell JN. Notices of Privacy Practices: A survey of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 documents presented to patients at US hospitals. Medical Care 2005;43:558-564.
9. Kincaid JP. Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel, 1975, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/aoo6655.pdf.
10. Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JH. Teaching patients with low literacy skills. American journal of Nursing 1996;96:16M.
11. Hanchate AD, Ash AS, Gazmararian JA, et al. The Demographic Assessment for Health Literacy (DAHL): A new tool for estimating associations between health literacy and outcomes in national surveys. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2008;23:1561-1566.
12. Miles TH. The fog index: a practical readability scale, In: Miles TH, Critical Thinking and Writing for Science and Technology. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1990, pp. 280-284.
13. See ref. 6, The AHRQ Informed Consent and Authorization Toolkit for Minimal Risk Research.
14. Paasche-Orlow MK, Brancati FL. Assessment of medical school institutional review board policies regarding compensation of subjects for research-related injury. American journal of Medicine 2005;118:175-180.
15. Woodward B. Challenges to human subject protections in US medical research. JAMA 1999;282:1947-1952.
16. Emanuel EJ, Menikoff J. Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. NEJM 2011;365:1145-1150.