Permission form synopses to improve parents' understanding of research: a randomized trial

C T D'Angio, H Wang, J E Hunn, G S Pryhuber, P R Chess, S Lakshminrusimha, C T D'Angio, H Wang, J E Hunn, G S Pryhuber, P R Chess, S Lakshminrusimha

Abstract

Objective: We hypothesized that, among parents of potential neonatal research subjects, an accompanying cover sheet added to the permission form (intervention) would increase understanding of the research, when compared to a standard form (control).

Study design: This pilot study enrolled parents approached for one of two index studies: one randomized trial and one observational study. A one-page cover sheet described critical study information. Families were randomized 1:1 to receive the cover sheet or not. Objective and subjective understanding and satisfaction were measured.

Results: Thirty-two parents completed all measures (17 control, 15 intervention). There were no differences in comprehension score (16.8±5.7 vs 16.3±3.5), subjective understanding (median 6 vs 6.5), or overall satisfaction with consent (median 7 vs 6.5) between control and intervention groups (all P>0.50).

Conclusion: A simplified permission form cover sheet had no effect on parents' understanding of studies for which their newborns were being recruited.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01704560.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Barfield RC, Church C. Informed consent in pediatric clinical trials. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2005;17:20–4.
    1. Raich PC, Plomer KD, Coyne CA. Literacy, comprehension, and informed consent in clinical research. Cancer Invest. 2001;19:437–45.
    1. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 2001;358:1772–7.
    1. Ballard HO, Shook LA, Desai NS, Anand KJ. Neonatal research and the validity of informed consent obtained in the perinatal period. J Perinatol. 2004;24:409–15.
    1. Davis TC, Holcombe RF, Berkel HJ, Pramanik S, Divers SG. Informed consent for clinical trials: a comparative study of standard versus simplified forms. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:668–74.
    1. Coyne CA, Xu R, Raich P, Plomer K, Dignan M, Wenzel LB, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of an easy-to-read informed consent statement for clinical trial participation: a study of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:836–42.
    1. Stenson BJ, Becher JC, McIntosh N. Neonatal research: the parental perspective. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2004;89:F321–3.
    1. Larson E, Foe G, Lally R. Reading level and length of written research consent forms. Clin Transl Sci. 2015;8:355–6.
    1. Malik L, Kuo J, Yip D, Mejia A. How well informed is the informed consent for cancer clinical trials? Clin Trials. 2014;11:686–8.
    1. Spertus JA, Bach R, Bethea C, Chhatriwalla A, Curtis JP, Gialde E, et al. Improving the process of informed consent for percutaneous coronary intervention: patient outcomes from the Patient Risk Information Services Manager (ePRISM) study. Am Heart J. 2015;169:234–41e1.
    1. Nishimura A, Carey J, Erwin PJ, Tilburt JC, Murad MH, McCormick JB. Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14:28.
    1. Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Nair VN, Narisetty NN, Fagerlin A. Informing the uninformed: optimizing the consent message using a fractional factorial design. JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167:640–6.
    1. Enama ME, Hu Z, Gordon I, Costner P, Ledgerwood JE, Grady C, et al. Randomization to standard and concise informed consent forms: development of evidence-based consent practices. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33:895–902.
    1. Matsui K, Lie RK, Turin TC, Kita Y. A randomized controlled trial of short and standard-length consent forms for a genetic cohort study: is longer better? J Epidemiol. 2012;22:308–16.
    1. Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. Jama. 2004;292:1593–601.
    1. Freer Y, McIntosh N, Teunisse S, Anand KJ, Boyle EM. More information, less understanding: a randomized study on consent issues in neonatal research. Pediatrics. 2009;123:1301–5.
    1. Rogers CG, Tyson JE, Kennedy KA, Broyles RS, Hickman JF. Conventional consent with opting in versus simplified consent with opting out: an exploratory trial for studies that do not increase patient risk. J Pediatr. 1998;132:606–11.
    1. Benatar JR, Mortimer J, Stretton M, Stewart RA. A booklet on participants' rights to improve consent for clinical research: a randomized trial. PLoS One. 2012;7:e47023.
    1. Stunkel L, Benson M, McLellan L, Sinaii N, Bedarida G, Emanuel E, et al. Comprehension and informed consent: assessing the effect of a short consent form. IRB. 2010;32:1–9.
    1. Agre P, Rapkin B. Improving informed consent: a comparison of four consent tools. IRB. 2003;25:1–7.
    1. Taub HA, Baker MT, Kline GE, Sturr JF. Comprehension of informed consent information by young-old through old-old volunteers. Exp Aging Res. 1987;13:173–8.
    1. Eder ML, Yamokoski AD, Wittmann PW, Kodish ED. Improving informed consent: suggestions from parents of children with leukemia. Pediatrics. 2007;119:e849–59.
    1. Masera G, D'Angio G. A proposed preamble to informed consent documents. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2010;55:14–5.
    1. Miller CK, O'Donnell DC, Searight HR, Barbarash RA. The Deaconess Informed Consent Comprehension Test: an assessment tool for clinical research subjects. Pharmacotherapy. 1996;16:872–8.
    1. Nunes AT, Trahms C, D'Angio CT. Informed consent for research: a cross-sectional survey on the views of parents of sick newborns. IRB: Ethics & Human Research. 2015;37:9–14.
    1. Kamath A, Up R, K AS. Willingness to participate in a clinical trial and understanding of informed consent information among medical students. Indian J Med Ethics. 2014;11:16–8.
    1. Montalvo W, Larson E. Participant comprehension of research for which they volunteer: a systematic review. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2014;46:423–31.
    1. Langford AT, Resnicow K, Dimond EP, Denicoff AM, Germain DS, McCaskill-Stevens W, et al. Racial/ethnic differences in clinical trial enrollment, refusal rates, ineligibility, and reasons for decline among patients at sites in the National Cancer Institute's Community Cancer Centers Program. Cancer. 2014;120:877–84.
    1. Ghafurian R. Dental school patients' understanding of informed consent. J Dent Educ. 2009;73:1394–400.
    1. Friborg O, Martinussen M, Rosenvinge JH. Likert-based vs. semantic differential-based scorings of positive psychological constructs: A psychometric comparison of two versions of a scale measuring resilience. Pers Individ Dif. 2006;40:873–84.
    1. Bjorn E, Rossel P, Holm S. Can the written information to research subjects be improved?--an empirical study. J Med Ethics. 1999;25:263–7.
    1. Campbell HM, Raisch DW, Sather MR, Segal AR, Warren SR, Naik R. Impact of a clinical trials information handbook on patient knowledge, perceptions, and likelihood of participation. IRB. 2008;30:6–14.
    1. Brehaut JC, Carroll K, Elwyn G, Saginur R, Kimmelman J, Shojania K, et al. Informed consent documents do not encourage good-quality decision making. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:708–24.
    1. Alexander SC, Keitz SA, Sloane R, Tulsky JA. A controlled trial of a short course to improve residents' communication with patients at the end of life. Acad Med. 2006;81:1008–12.
    1. Beskow LM, Friedman JY, Hardy NC, Lin L, Weinfurt KP. Developing a simplified consent form for biobanking. PLoS One. 2010;5:e13302.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe