Assessment of a decision aid to assist genetic testing research participants in the informed consent process

Genetic Testing

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 336-346

  Sorenson, J R ^a,c   Lakon, C ^a   Spinney, T ^b   Jennings Grant, T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^c University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EDUCATION; FAMILY; FEMALE; GENETIC PROCEDURES; GENETIC SCREENING; HEMOPHILIA A; HETEROZYGOTE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PSYCHOLOGIC ASSESSMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; THEORETICAL STUDY;

EID: 9744237295     PISSN: 10906576     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/gte.2004.8.336     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. DURFY, S.J., BUCHANAN, T.E., and BURKE, W. (1998). Testing for inherited susceptibility to breast cancer: A survey of informed consent forms for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing. Am. J. Med. Genet. 75, 82-87.
2. EDWARDS, A., and ELWYN, G. (1999). The potential benefits of decision aids in clinical Medicine. J. Am. Med. Assn. 282, 779-780.
3. GELLAR, G., BOTKIN, J.R., GREEN, M.J., PRESS, N., BIESECKER, B.B., WILFOND, B., GRANA, G., DALY, M., SCHNEIDER, K., and KAHN, M.J.E. (1997a). Genetic testing for susceptibility to adult-onset cancer: The process and content of informed consent. J. Am. Med. Assn. 277, 1467-1474.
4. GELLAR, G., STRAUSS, M., BERNHARDT, B., and HOLTZMAN, N.A. (1997b). "Decoding" informed consent: Insights from women regarding breast cancer susceptibility testing. Hastings Center Report 27, 28-33.
5. HUX, J.E., and NAYLOR, C.D. (1995). Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: Does the format of efficacy data determine patients' acceptance of treatment? Med. Decision Making 15, 152-157.
6. JANIS, I., and MANN, L. (1997). Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment. The Free Press, New York.
7. KENT, G. (1996). Shared understanding for informed consent: The relevance of psychological research on the provision of information. Soc. Sci. Med. 43, 1517-1523.
8. LAVORI, P.W., SUGARMAN, J., HAYS, M., and FEUSSNER, J. (1999). Improving informed consent in clinical trials: A duty to experiment. Controlled Clin. Trials 20, 187-193.
9. MAZUR, D., and HICKMAN, D. (1991). Patients' interpretations of probability terms. J. Gen. Int. Med. 6, 237-240.
10. O'CONNER, A. (1995). Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med. Decision Making 15, 25-30.
11. O'CONNOR, A.M. (1989). Effects of framing and level of probability on patient's references for cancer chemotherapy. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 42, 119-126.
12. PARKER, L.S., and LIDZ, C.W. (1994). Family coercion to participate in genetic family studies: Is there cause for IRB intervention? IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 16, 1, 2, 6-11.
13. PENSLAR, R.L. (1993). Protecting Human Research Subjects: Institutional Review Board Guidebook. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
14. PETTY, R.E., and CACIOPPO, J.T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Springer-Verlag, New York.
15. PROCHASKA, J., REDDING C., and EVERS, K. (1997). The transtheoretical model and stages of change. In Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd ed. K. Glanz, F. Lewis, and B. Rimer (eds.). Josey Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 60-84.
16. SUGARMAN, J., McCRORY, D., POWELL, D., KRASNY, A., ADAMS, A., BALL, E., and CASSELL, C. (1999). Empirical research on informed consent: An annotated bibliography, Hasting Center Rep., special supplement 29, S1-S42.
17. SUTHERLAND, H.J., LOCKWOOD, G.A., and TILL, J.E. (1990). Are we getting informed consent from patients with cancer. J. R. Soc. Med. 83, 439-443.
18. SUTHERLAND, H.J., LOCKWOOD, G.A., TRITCHLER, D.L., SEM, F., BROOKS, L., and TILL, J.E. (1991). Communicating probabilistic information to cancer patients: Is there 'noise' on the line? Soc. Sci. Med. 32, 725-731.
19. U.S. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1978). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research/National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research [DHEW Publication No. (OS) 78-0012]. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC.