Sense and readability: Participant information sheets for research studies

British Journal of Psychiatry

Volumn 208, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 189-194

  Ennis, Liam ^a   Wykes, Til ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA BASE; HUMAN; MENTAL HEALTH; PATIENT INFORMATION; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; SCIENTIST; WRITING; COMPREHENSION; FACTUAL DATABASE; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATIENT EDUCATION; STANDARDS; TEACHING;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMPREHENSION; CONSENT FORMS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; TEACHING MATERIALS;

EID: 84957899389     PISSN: 00071250     EISSN: 14721465     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.156687     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Mann T. Informed consent for psychological research: do subjects comprehend consent forms and understand their legal rights? Psychol Sci 1994; 5: 140-3.
2. Dresden GM, Levitt MA. Modifying a standard industry clinical trial consent form improves patient information retention as part of the informed consent process. Acad Emerg Med 2001; 8: 246-52.
3. Rogers CG, Tyson JE, Kennedy KA, Broyles RS, Hickman JF. Conventional consent with opting in versus simplified consent with opting out: an exploratory trial for studies that do not increase patient risk. J Pediatr 1998; 132: 606-11.
4. Sharp SM. Consent documents for oncology trials: does anybody read these things? Am J Clin Oncol 2004; 27: 570-5.
5. Grundner T. On the readability of surgical consent forms. N Engl J Med 1980; 302: 900-2.
6. Morrow GR. How readable are subject consent forms? JAMA 1980; 244: 56-8.
7. Terblanche M, Burgess L. Examining the readability of patient-informed consent forms. Clin Trials J 2010; 2: 157-62.
8. Christopher P, Foti ME, Roy-Bujnowski K, Appelbaum PS. Consent form readability and educational levels of potential participants in mental health research. Psychiatr Serv 2007; 58: 227-32.
9. Ménoni V, Lucas N, Leforestier JF, Dimet J, Doz F, Chatellier G, et al. The readability of information and consent forms in clinical research in France. PLoS One 2010; 5: e10576.
10. Taylor H, Bramley D. An analysis of the readability of patient information and consent forms used in research studies in anaesthesia in Australia and New Zealand. Anaesth Intensive Care 2012; 40: 995-8.
11. National Institutes of Health. How to Write Easy-to-read Health Materials. NIH, 2013.
12. Ross S, Grant A, Counsell C, Gillespie W, Russell I, Prescott R. Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 1143-56.
13. Jefford M, Mileshkin L, Matthews J, Raunow H, O'Kane C, Cavicchiolo T, et al. Satisfaction with the decision to participate in cancer clinical trials is high, but understanding is a problem. Support Care Cancer 2011; 19: 371-9.
14. Ennis L, Wykes T. Impact of patient involvement in mental health research: longitudinal study. Br J Psychiatry 2013; 203: 381-6.
15. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 1948; 32: 221.
16. Mental Health Research Funders' Group. Strategic Analysis of UK Mental Health Research Funding. Mental Health Research Funders' Group, 2005.
17. Hopper KD, TenHave TR, Hartzel J. Informed consent forms for clinical and research imaging procedures: how much do patients understand? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 164: 493-6.
18. Goldstein AO, Frasier P, Curtis P, Reid A, Kreher NE. Consent form readability in university-sponsored research. J Fam Pract 1996; 42: 606-11.
19. Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Ethics review roulette: what can we learn? That ethics review has costs and one size doesn't fit all. BMJ 2004; 328: 121.
20. Hearnshaw H. Comparison of requirements of research ethics committees in 11 European countries for a non-invasive interventional study. BMJ 2004; 328: 140.
21. Mader TJ, Playe SJ. Emergency medicine research consent form readability assessment. Ann Emerg Med 1997; 29: 534-9.
22. Williamson J, Martin A. Assessing the readability statistics of national consent forms in the UK. Int J Clin Pract 2010; 64: 322-9.
23. Hartley J, Burnhill P. Fifty guidelines for improving instructional text. Programmed Learn Educational Technol J 1977; 14: 65-73.
24. Health Research Authority. Style: What Makes a Good Participant Information Sheet. HRA, 2014.
25. University of Michigan. Simplification Guide to Medical Terms. University of Michigan, 2012.
26. Hunninghake DB, Darby CA, Probstfield JL. Recruitment experience in clinical trials: literature summary and annotated bibliography. Control Clin Trials 1987; 8: 6-30.
27. Lovato LC, Hill K, Hertert S, Hunninghake DB, Probstfield JL. Recruitment for controlled clinical trials: literature summary and annotated bibliography. Control Clin Trials 1997; 18: 328-52.
28. McDonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA, Grant AM, Cook JA, et al. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials 2006; 7: 9.
29. Treweek S, Mitchell E, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Kjeldstrim M, Taskila T, et al. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 4: MR000013.
30. Roberson NL. Clinical trial participation: viewpoints from racial/ethnic groups. Cancer 1994; 74: 2687-91.
31. Mills EJ, Seely D, Rachlis B, Griffith L, Wu P, Wilson K, et al. Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors. Lancet Oncol 2006; 7: 141-8.
32. Beyer D, Lauer M, Davis S. Readability of informed-consent forms. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2262.