Consent documents for oncology trials: does anybody read these things?
- PMID: 15577434
- DOI: 10.1097/01.coc.0000135925.83221.b3
Consent documents for oncology trials: does anybody read these things?
Abstract
This study was conducted to assess the readability and length of informed consent documents used in clinical trials in oncology. One hundred seven consent documents from clinical protocols open to accrual at the Emory University Winship Cancer Institute were quantitatively analyzed. These included trials sponsored or organized internally, by commercial interests, and by various cooperative groups. Each form was analyzed using the electronic text version of the consent document approved by the Emory University IRB. Readability software was used to determine the length of each document and 2 measures of readability: The Flesch Reading Ease Score and a grade-level readability estimate using the Gunning Fog Index. The mean length +/- SD was 2709 +/- 971 words or 10.8 +/- 3.8 pages. The mean +/- SD Flesch Reading Ease Score was 45.48 +/- 5.24. The mean +/- SD grade level using the Gunning Fog Index was 11.9 +/- 1.53. None of the consent documents were written at or below the 8th-grade reading level; 1.8% were at or below the 9th-grade level; 10.5% were below the 10th-grade level. Results were similar regardless of study sponsor. Consent documents for clinical trials in oncology are lengthy and complex to the point that is unlikely that most patients will be willing to read them or be able to understand the concepts they discuss. IRBs and cooperative group review committees are either unwilling or unable to enforce widely accepted readability standards for the consent document. We discuss the implications of this situation and suggest ways to improve it.
Comment in
-
Informed consent in clinical research; Do patients understand what they have signed?Farm Hosp. 2016 May 1;40(3):209-18. doi: 10.7399/fh.2016.40.3.10411. Farm Hosp. 2016. PMID: 27145389 English.
Similar articles
-
Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families?J Clin Oncol. 1994 Oct;12(10):2211-5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1994.12.10.2211. J Clin Oncol. 1994. PMID: 7931491
-
Assessment of Length and Readability of Informed Consent Documents for COVID-19 Vaccine Trials.JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Apr 1;4(4):e2110843. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.10843. JAMA Netw Open. 2021. PMID: 33909052 Free PMC article.
-
Consent form heterogeneity in cancer trials: the cooperative group and institutional review board gap.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013 Jul 3;105(13):947-53. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djt143. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013. PMID: 23821757
-
The Readability of AAOS Patient Education Materials: Evaluating the Progress Since 2008.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Sep 7;98(17):e70. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.00658. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016. PMID: 27605695 Review.
-
A strategy for learning principles and elements of informed consent.Nurse Educ. 2008 Mar-Apr;33(2):75-8. doi: 10.1097/01.NNE.0000299507.47776.6a. Nurse Educ. 2008. PMID: 18317319 Review.
Cited by
-
Comparing the effects of a patient-designed-and-informed participant information leaflet in comparison with a standard, researcher-designed information leaflet on recruitment, retention and understanding: A study-within-a-trial.Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2022 Jun 2;28:100936. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2022.100936. eCollection 2022 Aug. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2022. PMID: 35711678 Free PMC article.
-
Substance use disorder genetic research: investigators and participants grapple with the ethical issues.Psychiatr Genet. 2009 Apr;19(2):83-90. doi: 10.1097/YPG.0b013e328320800e. Psychiatr Genet. 2009. PMID: 19668113 Free PMC article.
-
"Entering a Clinical Trial: Is it Right for You?": a randomized study of The Clinical Trials Video and its impact on the informed consent process.Cancer. 2012 Apr 1;118(7):1877-83. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26438. Epub 2011 Aug 25. Cancer. 2012. PMID: 22009665 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial.PLoS One. 2017 Apr 26;12(4):e0172607. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172607. eCollection 2017. PLoS One. 2017. PMID: 28445471 Free PMC article.
-
Four reasons why too many informed consents to clinical research are invalid: a critical analysis of current practices.BMJ Open. 2022 Mar 4;12(3):e050543. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050543. BMJ Open. 2022. PMID: 35246415 Free PMC article. Review.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical