Explore the vast range of titles available.

Informed consent is the cornerstone of human research subject protection. Many subjects sign consent documents without understanding the study purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and their rights. Proof of comprehension is not required and rarely obtained. Understanding might improve by using an interactive system with multiple options for hearing, viewing and reading about the study and the consent form at the subject's own pace with testing and immediate feedback. This prospective randomized study compared the IRB-approved paper ICF for an actual clinical research study with an interactive presentation of the same study and its associated consent form using an iPad device in two populations: clinical research professionals, and patients drawn from a variety of outpatient practice settings. Of the 90 participants, 69 completed the online test and survey questions the day after the session (maximum 36 hours post-session). Among research professionals (n = 14), there was a trend (p = .07) in the direction of iPad subjects testing better on the online test (mean correct  =  77%) compared with paper subjects (mean correct = 57%). Among patients (n = 55), iPad subjects had significantly higher test scores than standard paper consent subjects (mean correct = 75% vs 58%, p < .001). For all subjects, the total time spent reviewing the paper consent was 13.2 minutes, significantly less than the average of 22.7 minutes total on the three components to be reviewed using the iPad (introductory video, consent form, interactive quiz). Overall satisfaction and overall enjoyment slightly favored the interactive iPad presentation. This study demonstrates that combining an introductory video, standard consent language, and an interactive quiz on a tablet-based system improves comprehension of research study procedures and risks.

High quality of informed consent form is essential for adequate information transfer between physicians and patients. Current status of medical procedure consent forms in clinical practice in Croatia specifically in terms of the readability and the content is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the readability and the content of informed consent forms for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures used with patients in Croatia. 52 informed consent forms from six Croatian hospitals on the secondary and tertiary health-care level were tested for reading difficulty using Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) formula adjusted for Croatian language and for qualitative analysis of the content. The averaged SMOG grade of analyzed informed consent forms was 13.25 (SD 1.59, range 10-19). Content analysis revealed that informed consent forms included description of risks in 96% of the cases, benefits in 81%, description of procedures in 78%, alternatives in 52%, risks and benefits of alternatives in 17% and risks and benefits of not receiving treatment or undergoing procedures in 13%. Readability of evaluated informed consent forms is not appropriate for the general population in Croatia. The content of the forms failed to include in high proportion of the cases description of alternatives, risks and benefits of alternatives, as well as risks and benefits of not receiving treatments or undergoing procedures. Data obtained from this research could help in development and improvement of informed consent forms in Croatia especially now when Croatian hospitals are undergoing the process of accreditation.

BackgroundInherent to clinical research is the informed consent process, with the informed consent form (ICF), a key component of human participant protections. We wished to examine whether a shortened and simplified ICF, accompanied by an appendix, improved participant understanding of a study compared with a conventional ICF.MethodsA shortened ICF was developed from an existing conventional ICF for a neonatal study. Either the shortened or conventional ICF was randomly distributed to members of two parental advocacy groups. Participants answered survey questions about the form they received.ResultsThirty-one out of forty-one (76%) parents in the shortened ICF and 28/41 (68%) in the conventional ICF group responded. Significantly more parents in the shortened ICF group found their form “short and to the point”. Although they also stated that the shortened ICF did not provide enough information, there were no significant differences between groups measuring the understanding of key study components.ConclusionA shortened ICF did not impact the understanding of the clinical trial. It will be important to compare the shortened and conventional forms in actual clinical trials.

Background: This study evaluated the effect of a simplified informed consent form for clinical trials on the understanding and efficacy of informed consent information across health literacy levels. Methods: A total of 150 participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups and provided with either standard or simplified consent forms for a cancer clinical trial. The features of the simplified informed consent form included plain language, short sentences, diagrams, pictures, and bullet points. Results: Levels of objective and subjective understanding were significantly higher in participants provided with simplified informed consent forms relative to those provided with standard informed consent forms. The interaction effects between type of consent form and health literacy level on objective and subjective understanding were nonsignificant. Conclusion: Simplified informed consent was effective in enhancing participant’s subjective and objective understanding regardless of health literacy.

Background The participant information sheet (PIS) provided to potential trial participants is a critical part of the process of valid consent. However, there is long-standing concern that these lengthy and complex documents are not fit-for-purpose. This has been supported recently through the application of a performance-based approach to testing and improving readability called user testing. This method is now widely used to improve patient medicine leaflets - determining whether people can find and understand key facts. This study applied for the first time a controlled design to determine whether a PIS developed through user testing had improved readability over the original, using a sheet from a UK trial in acute myeloid leukemia (AML16). Methods In the first phase the performance of the original PIS was tested on people in the target group for the trial. There were three rounds of testing including 50 people in total - with the information revised according to its performance after each of the first 2 rounds. In the second phase, the revised PIS was compared with the original in a parallel groups randomised controlled trial (RCT) A total of 123 participants were recruited and randomly allocated to read one version of the PIS to find and show understanding of 21 key facts. Results The first, developmental phase produced a revised PIS significantly altered in its wording and layout. In the second, trial phase 66% of participants who read the revised PIS were able to show understanding of all aspects of the trial, compared with 15% of those reading the original version (Odds Ratio 11.2; Chi-square = 31.5 p < .001). When asked to state a preference, 87.1% participants chose the revised PIS (Sign test p < .001). Conclusions The original PIS for the AML16 trial may not have enabled valid consent. Combining performance-based user testing with expertise in writing for patients and information design led to a significantly improved and preferred information sheet. User testing is an efficient method for indicating strengths and weaknesses in trial information, and Research Ethics Committees and Institutional Review Boards should consider requesting such testing, to ensure that PIS are fit-for-purpose.

Background: Although the amount of detail in informed consent documents has increased over time and the documents have therefore become very long, there is little research on whether longer informed consent documents actually result in (1) better informed research subjects or (2) higher consent rates. We therefore conducted an add-on randomized controlled trial to the Takashima Study, a prospective Japanese population-based genetic cohort study, to test the hypothesis that a shorter informed consent form would satisfy both of the above goals. Methods: Standard (10 459 words, 11 pages) and short (3602 words, 5 pages) consent forms in Japanese were developed and distributed using cluster-randomization to 293 potential cohort subjects living in 9 medico-social units and 288 subjects in 8 medico-social units, respectively. Results: Few differences were found between the 2 groups with regard to outcome measures, including participants' self-perceived understanding, recall of information, concerns, voluntariness, trust, satisfaction, sense of duty, and consent rates. Conclusions: A short informed consent form was no less valid than a standard form with regard to fulfilling ethical requirements and securing the scientific validity of research.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Information on the rights of subjects in clinical trials has become increasingly complex and difficult to understand. This study evaluates whether a simple booklet which is relevant to all research studies improves the understanding of rights needed for subjects to provide informed consent. 21 currently used informed consent forms (ICF) from international clinical trials were separated into information related to the specific research study, and general information on participants' rights. A booklet designed to provide information on participants' rights which used simple language was developed to replace this information in current ICF's Readability of each component of ICF's and the booklet was then assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading ease score (FK). To further evaluate the booklet 282 hospital inpatients were randomised to one of three ways to present research information; a standard ICF, the booklet combined with a short ICF, or the booklet combined with a simplified ICF. Comprehension of information related to the research proposal and to participant's rights was assessed by questionnaire. Information related to participants' rights contributed an average of 44% of the words in standard ICFs, and was harder to read than information describing the clinical trial (FK 25 versus (vs.) 41 respectively, p = 0.0003). The booklet reduced the number of words and improved FK from 25 to 42. The simplified ICF had a slightly higher FK score than the standard ICF (50 vs. 42). Comprehension assessed in inpatients was better for the booklet and short ICF 62%, (95% confidence interval (CI) 56 to 67) correct, or simplified ICF 62% (CI 58 to 68) correct compared to 52%, (CI 47 to 57) correct for the standard ICF, p = 0.009. This was due to better understanding of questions on rights (62% vs. 49% correct, p = 0.0008). Comprehension of study related information was similar for the simplified and standard ICF (60% vs. 64% correct, p = 0.68). A booklet provides a simple consistent approach to providing information on participant rights which is relevant to all research studies, and improves comprehension of patients who typically participate in clinical trials.

Background Simplified informed consent forms have been successful in improving patient satisfaction and decreasing patient anxiety. However, unsolved problems remain about whether these documents improve comprehension and satisfaction of patients with standard literacy skills. Purposes To investigate whether a detailed consent form explaining the key elements of informed consent, in comparison to a standard consent form, would increase the comprehension and satisfaction of adult cancer patients. Methods Patients who were eligible for the National Surgical Adjuvant Study of Breast Cancer (protocol 01(N-SAS/BC-01)) were randomly selected to receive one of the following four versions: detailed document with graphics, detailed document without graphics, standard document with graphics, and standard document without graphics. The forms were written in plain language from the patients’ point of view. A total of 85 patients were administered questionnaires via interview to assess levels of comprehension, satisfaction, and anxiety. Results Patients demonstrated a strong understanding of information regarding treatment and research. Patient comprehension did not differ significantly between the detailed document arms and the standard document arms. Patient satisfaction level increased according to the amount of information presented in the consent form; most patients preferred the detailed document with graphics. Anxiety and accrual rates in the parent study were not affected by informed consent procedures. Limitations Findings were limited to adults who had standard literacy skills and may not be generalizable to a population with lower literacy. Conclusion Informed consent can be a significant experience for a population with standard literacy skills, as long as the document is easily comprehensible. Such information should be provided in a format that corresponds with patient needs, education levels, and preferences.

Consent forms play an active role in the consent process with generic, handwritten consent forms (GCF) often the standard across the National Health Service. Increasingly, procedure-specific consent forms (PSCF) are being used as an alternative. However, concerns remain about whether they meet the standard for consent. We therefore conducted a systematic review with the objectives of investigating evidence for PSCF, study methodology and medicolegal criteria. This systematic review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023392693) and conducted from 1 January 1990 to 17 March 2023 using the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Emcare databases. A grey literature search was also performed. All studies evaluating PSCF in medical and surgical settings were included. Risk-of-bias analysis was performed using 'RoB 2' and 'ROBINS-I'. Meta-analysis was not possible because of the results' heterogeneity. We identified 21 studies investigating PSCF with no systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported. Most studies were quality improvement projects ( = 10) followed by randomised studies ( = 5). No definitive legal guidance for PSCFs and no studies assessing their role in litigation post-procedural complications were identified. PSCFs were associated with improved documentation (70%-100%; = 11) and legibility (100%; = 2) compared with GCF. Randomised studies ( = 4) investigating patient understanding and recall for PSCF were inconclusive compared with GCF. The heterogeneous evidence available merely demonstrates superior documentation of PSCF compared with GCF. Studies do not adequately investigate the impact on informed consent and fail to address the associated legal concerns. Further randomised studies with patient-centric outcomes and consideration for medicolegal criteria are needed.

Consent forms have become too long and often do little to help people understand the risk elements of their participation in research, instead focusing on risk reduction for research institutions. Under the auspices of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group, we identified a core set of elements for participant consent documents to be used in clinical research and present these as a template consent form. Our guideline core team comprised experts in the legal and ethical aspects of research, and a clinical trialist–scientist. We conducted a directed review to compile a list of applicable regulatory, policy, and guidance requirements for the documentation of informed consent for research conducted with human participants in Canada. We used a gap analysis to identify the elements required in a research consent form, based on these documents and in comparison with 10 existing research ethics board (REB) informed-consent form templates. The guideline, as well as a fillable template for the form, was created with input from a pan-Canadian advisory group, interested parties, and broad public input. We tested the template with a small group of studies across several research domains. Our process for managing competing interests adhered to Guidelines International Network principles. From our gap analysis, we identified 75 core elements for participant consent forms in clinical research, which we have grouped under 6 main categories (i.e., information for potential participants about participating in research in general and in the particular study; harms and benefits of participation; protection of participant data; points of contact; and giving consent) in a fillable consent template. Because studies vary, specific elements should be included in a study consent form only if relevant to the type of research being conducted and the corresponding compliance requirements, as identified in our gap analysis. The template with the core set of required elements is intended to be used by any researcher applying for REB approval to document participant consent and, when applied with consideration of our associated guidance, is sufficient to meet regulatory requirements for research in Canada. Identifying the required elements for consent forms is intended to streamline consent documents across the country, facilitate multi-site projects, and simplify the approval process for all those involved.