Patient reactions to confidentiality, liability, and financial aspects of informed consent in cardiology research
- PMID: 20233979
- PMCID: PMC3418870
- DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.109.849273
Patient reactions to confidentiality, liability, and financial aspects of informed consent in cardiology research
Abstract
Background: Although the informed consent process is supposed to help potential research participants make informed and voluntary decisions about participating in research, little is known about how participants react to language in the informed consent document and whether their reactions are related to their willingness to enroll in clinical trials. We examined the relationship between patients' reactions to standard informed consent language and their willingness to participate in a hypothetical clinical trial.
Methods and results: We simulated the consent process for a hypothetical cardiology clinical trial with 470 patients in an outpatient cardiovascular medicine clinic at a large academic medical center. We analyzed the spontaneous comments and questions that participants made during the interviews about each section of the informed consent document. Few participants made positive comments. Participants made the most negative comments about the sections on risks, study purpose or protocol, and payment for injury. Having a negative reaction to any section was associated with a lower likelihood of participating in the clinical trial. Using a multivariable model, we found that negative reactions in the patient rights, financial disclosure, and confidentiality sections predicted willingness to participate (P<0.001).
Conclusions: Recognizing elements of informed consent that elicit questions and concerns from potential research participants may help investigators design clinical research trials and model language in a way that reduces concerns or increases participant understanding, thereby enhancing informed consent for research.
Figures


Comment in
-
Void for vagueness: a problem in research consent?Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010 Mar;3(2):116-7. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.110.943134. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010. PMID: 20233977 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Void for vagueness: a problem in research consent?Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010 Mar;3(2):116-7. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.110.943134. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010. PMID: 20233977 No abstract available.
-
Understanding the decisions of cancer clinical trial participants to enter research studies: factors associated with informed consent, patient satisfaction, and decisional regret.Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Oct;63(1-2):104-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.09.006. Epub 2005 Oct 19. Patient Educ Couns. 2006. PMID: 16242898
-
Evaluation of interventions for informed consent for randomised controlled trials (ELICIT): protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey.Trials. 2015 Oct 27;16:484. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-1011-8. Trials. 2015. PMID: 26507504 Free PMC article.
-
Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents.Lancet Oncol. 2008 May;9(5):485-93. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70128-1. Lancet Oncol. 2008. PMID: 18452859 Review.
-
The International Xenotransplantation Association consensus statement on conditions for undertaking clinical trials of porcine islet products in type 1 diabetes--chapter 7: Informed consent and xenotransplantation clinical trials.Xenotransplantation. 2009 Jul-Aug;16(4):255-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3089.2009.00546.x. Xenotransplantation. 2009. PMID: 19799766
References
-
- National Institutes of Health Regulations and Ethical Guidelines. The Belmont Report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. [Accessed December 3, 2008]; http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html. - PubMed
-
- King SB, 3rd, Barnhart HX, Kosinski AS, Weintraub WS, Lembo NJ, Petersen JY, Douglas JS, Jr, Jones EL, Craver JM, Guyton RA, Morris DC, Liberman HA. Angioplasty or surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease: comparison of eligible registry and randomized patients in the EAST trial and influence of treatment selection on outcomes. Emory Angioplasty versus Surgery Trial Investigators. Am J Cardiol. 1997;79:1453–1459. - PubMed
-
- Gorkin L, Schron EB, Handshaw K, Shea S, Kinney MR, Branyon M, Campion J, Bigger JT, Jr, Sylvia SC, Duggan J, Stylianou M, Lancaster S, Ahern DK, Follick MJ. Clinical trial enrollers vs. nonenrollers: the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) Recruitment and Enrollment Assessment in Clinical Trials (REACT) project. Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:46–59. - PubMed
-
- Sen Biswas M, Newby LK, Bastian LA, Peterson ED, Sugarman J. Who refuses enrollment in cardiac clinical trials? Clin Trials. 2007;4:258–263. - PubMed
-
- Protection of Human Subjects. 45 CFR §46. 1991
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical