Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 May;19(5):6-18.
doi: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1587031.

Exploring Understanding of "Understanding": The Paradigm Case of Biobank Consent Comprehension

Laura M Beskow  1 , Kevin P Weinfurt  2
Affiliations

Exploring Understanding of "Understanding": The Paradigm Case of Biobank Consent Comprehension

Laura M Beskow et al. Am J Bioeth. 2019 May.

Abstract

Data documenting poor understanding among research participants and real-time efforts to assess comprehension in large-scale studies are focusing new attention on informed consent comprehension. Within the context of biobanking consent, we previously convened a multidisciplinary panel to reach consensus about what information must be understood for a prospective participant's consent to be considered valid. Subsequently, we presented them with data from another study showing that many U.S. adults would fail to comprehend the information the panel had deemed essential. When asked to evaluate the importance of the information again, panelists' opinions shifted dramatically in the direction of requiring that less information be understood. Follow-up interviews indicated significant uncertainty about defining a threshold of understanding and what should happen when prospective participants are unable to grasp key information. These findings have important implications for urgently needed discussion of whether consent comprehension is an ethical requirement or an ethical aspiration.

Keywords: Informed consent; autonomy; biobanking; comprehension; research ethics; voluntariness.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

COMPETING INTERESTS

None

Comment in

References

    1. Agre Patricia, Campbell Frances A., Goldman Barbara D., Boccia Maria L., Kass Nancy, McCullough Laurence B., Merz Jon F., Miller Suzanne M., Mintz Jim, Rapkin Bruce, Sugarman Jeremy, Sorenson James, and Wirshing Donna. 2003. “Improving informed consent: the medium is not the message.” IRB 25 (5):S11–S19. - PubMed
    1. Appelbaum Paul S. 2010. “Understanding “understanding”: an important step toward improving informed consent to research.” AJOB Prim Res 1 (2):1–3.
    1. Beardsley E, Jefford M, and Mileshkin L. 2007. “Longer consent forms for clinical trials compromise patient understanding: so why are they lengthening?” J Clin Oncol 25 (9):e13–4. - PubMed
    1. Bergenmar M, Johansson H, and Wilking N. 2011. “Levels of knowledge and perceived understanding among participants in cancer clinical trials - factors related to the informed consent procedure.” Clin Trials 8 (1):77–84. - PubMed
    1. Bergenmar M, Molin C, Wilking N, and Brandberg Y. 2008. “Knowledge and understanding among cancer patients consenting to participate in clinical trials.” Eur J Cancer 44 (17):2627–33. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources