The Contents and Readability of Informed Consent Forms for Oncology Clinical Trials

2010 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 387-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winson Y. Cheung ◽  
Gregory R. Pond ◽  
Ronald J. Heslegrave ◽  
Katherine Enright ◽  
Larissa Potanina ◽  
...  
2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6544-6544
Author(s):  
W. Y. Cheung ◽  
G. R. Pond ◽  
R. J. Heslegrave ◽  
L. Potanina ◽  
L. L. Siu

Author(s):  
Saliha Akhtar

Health literacy has been found to be linked to healthcare understanding and decision making. Therefore, it makes sense why individuals who do not understand clinical trials will be less likely to want to enroll in one. In fact, three major barriers found in the literature that prevent potential participants from enrolling in clinical trials include a distrust or negative perception, lack of understanding, and lack of accessible and affordable healthcare. Hence, there is a need to increase potential participants' healthcare understanding so that they can make the best healthcare decisions for themselves. Strategies suggested to help increase potential participants' health literacy include revising informed consent forms, utilizing culturally targeted statements, using a variety of material, and training investigative site personnel. These proposed strategies may help increase health literacy, which in turn could improve clinical trial recruitment. Furthermore, these strategies focus on different elements of health literacy and coupled together may bring the most improvement.


2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yvonne D Hastings ◽  
Natalie K Bradford ◽  
Liane R Lockwood ◽  
Robert S Ware ◽  
Jeanine Young

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (10) ◽  
pp. 1825-1831
Author(s):  
A. G. Jaramillo Vélez ◽  
M. Aguas Compaired ◽  
M. Granados Plaza ◽  
E. L. Mariño ◽  
P. Modamio

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18177-e18177
Author(s):  
Sonja Rummell ◽  
Leo Chen ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 153-153
Author(s):  
Sonja Rummell ◽  
Leo Chen ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung

153 Background: Informed consent forms (ICFs) should provide prospective subjects with an opportunity to balance the risks and benefits of study participation. However, there are growing concerns about the quality of ICFs. Optional ICFs are also increasingly used as the number of companion studies and biomarker evaluations requiring additional tests become more frequent. We examined trends in the content and format of main and optional ICFs. Methods: ICFs from clinical trials at a tertiary cancer center in British Columbia from 2000 to 2015 were reviewed. We focused on breast or gastrointestinal (GI) cancer studies. Readability was evaluated with the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) where a higher FRES (maximum 100) and a lower FKGL (maximum 12) indicated easier readability. We applied t-tests and linear regressions to examine variations among clinical trials and changes over time. Results: We identified 133 main ICFs of which 70% had optional ICFs and where 57% and 43% were breast and GI cancer studies. Phase III trials (44%), industry funded investigations (70%), and studies involving palliative therapies (72%) were most common. Trials from recent years were more likely to have optional ICFs than those from earlier years (p < 0.001). The median length and median word count in main and optional ICFs were 16 and 6 pages and 6183 and 1862 words, respectively. These changed significantly over time whereby main ICFs increased approximately by 1 page and 364 words per year over the 15 year period (p < 0.001). Industry funded trials also had longer ICFs (p = 0.006). Study methods, risks, and confidentiality occupied 29%, 20%, and 11% of the content on ICFs, respectively. Sections pertaining to eligibility (p < 0.001) and screening procedures (p = 0.007) also increased with time, particularly for industry funded studies (p = 0.006). In terms of readability, optional ICFs were generally more difficult to read than main ICFs (FRES 48.3 vs 50.0, p = 0.024; FKGL 11.8 vs 11.1, p < 0.001), especially in recent years (p < 0.001). Conclusions: This is one of the first analyses to include optional ICFs. Length of ICFs is increasing and readability is discordant with the average reading level of potential trial participants.


2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen M. Denzen ◽  
Martha E. Burton Santibáñez ◽  
Heather Moore ◽  
Amy Foley ◽  
Iris D. Gersten ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17562-e17562
Author(s):  
L. E. Fein ◽  
A. Romera ◽  
C. M. Micheri ◽  
M. I. Diaz ◽  
R. A. Sala

e17562 Background: Prediction of patient recruitment in OCT is one of the most important variables to guarantee timely closure of the trial. Earlier data analysis and conclusions define further research or discontinuation of the development of a given drug. Methods: Retrospective analysis of the recruitment and clinical records of all the patients of the COR that were contacted to participate in an OCT from 2006 to 2008 to identify the causes according to which patients did not participate. Results: Total of candidates 346, 175 women (50.6%). Average age 60 years (range 36 to 89). 42 patients (12%) rejected to participate in an OCT. 80 patients (23%) were screening failures (SF). 59 patients (17%) for not fulfilling an inclusion criteria (IC). Non appropriate stage or absence of measurable disease at screening (35%), abnormal labs (14%) and state of receptors or biomarkers (9%). Total of clinically unpredictable IC SF was 57.5%. 21 patients (6%) were SF due to an exclusion criteria (EC). Presence of distant metastases (12,5%), abnormal labs (2.5%) and abnormal EKG (2.5%). Total of clinically unpredictable EC SF was 19%. Conclusions: 35% of candidate patients did not participate. The most frequent cause was SF (23%). 76.5% of these SF were impossible to determine when informed consent was signed. 12% of patients rejected to participate for different reasons. Our results did not identify a predominant modifiable reason to improve recruitment. For future feasibility analyses our estimation of 35% dropout will be considered standard. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document