The Informed consent form: Document development and evaluation

Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 1309-1317

  Hochhauser, Mark ^a  

^a Golden Valley   (United States)

Author keywords

Document design; Informed consent; Plain English; Readability

Indexed keywords

EID: 84996183964     PISSN: 21684790     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009286150003400438     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Schriver KA Dynamics in Document Design. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1994.
2. Wheildon C. Type & Layout. Berkeley, CA: Strath-moor Press; 1996.
3. Williams R. The Non-Designer's Design Book. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press; 1994.
4. Shimm DS Spece RG Rate of refusal to participate in clinical trials. IRB: Rev Human Subjects Res. 1992; 14(2):7–9.
5. NCI. Recommendations for the Development of Informed Consent Documents for Cancer Clinical Trials. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute: 1998.
6. Zeno SM Ivens SH Millard RT Duvvuri R. The Educator's Word Frequency Guide. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates; 1995.
7. Breland HM Word frequency and word difficulty: A Comparison of Counts in Four Corpora. Psycholog Sci. 1996; 7: 96–99.
8. Waggoner WC Mayo DM Who understands? A survey of 25 words or phrases commonly used in proposed clinical research consent forms. IRB: Rev Human Subjects Res. 1995; 19(1):6–9.
9. Waggoner WC Sherman BB Who understands? II: A survey of 27 words, phrases, or symbols used in proposed clinical research consent forms. IRB: Rev Human Subjects Res. 1996; 18(3):8–10.
10. Steinert BW Informed consent glossary. App Clin Trials. 1997; 6(5):71–73.
11. University of Utah Health Sciences Center. Guidelines for Patient Education Written Materials: An Author's Guide. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Hospitals and Clinics; 1998.
12. Flesch R. The Art of Readable Writing. New York, NY: Macmillan; 1949.
13. Hochhauser M. Some overlooked aspects of consent form readability. IRB: Rev Hum Subjects Res. 1997; 18(5):5–9.
14. Hochhauser M. Informed consent and patient's rights documents: A write, a rite, or a rewrite? Ethics Behavior. 1999; 9(1):1–20.
15. Davis TC Holcombe RF Berkel HJ Pramanik S Divers SG Informed Consent for Clinical Trials: a Comparative Study of Standard Versus Simplified Forms. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998; 90(9):668–674.
16. Blenkinsop S. Whatever Happened to Plain English? The Gobbledygook Smokescreen that Baffles Research Subjects. In: Close E, Combes R, Hubbard A, Illingworth J, eds. In: Volunteers in Research and Testing. Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis; 1997.
17. Wydick RC Plain English for Lawyers. 4th ed. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press; 1998.
18. Bailey EP Plain English at Work. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
19. Philipson SJ Doyle MA Gabram S, et al Informed consent for research: A study to evaluate readability and processability to effect change. J Investig Med. 1995; 43: 459–467.
20. Doak CC Doak LG Root JH Teaching Patients with Low Literacy Skills. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott; 1996.
21. Searight HR Miller CK Remembering and interpreting informed consent: A qualitative study of drug trial participants. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1996; 9(1): 14–22.
22. Miller CK O'Donnell DC Searight HR Barbarash RA The Deaconness Informed Consent Comprehension Test: An assessment tool for clinical research subjects. Pharmacother. 1996; 16(5):872–878.
23. Titus SL Keane MA Do you understand?: An ethical assessment of researchers' description of the consenting process. J Clin Ethics. 1996; 7(1):60–68.
24. Oller JW, Jonz J, eds. Cloze and Coherence. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press; 1994.