Readability of consent forms in veterinary clinical research

Best practices for recruitment in veterinary clinical trials

A successful clinical trial requires participants, but many factors can impede effective study recruitment. To better recruit for quality veterinary clinical trials in client-owned animals that lead to improved evidence-based patient care and outcomes, there is a collective need to share and implement current best practices for recruitment strategies. These strategies should utilize a holistic view of recruitment, encompassing study design and logistics, representative participation, incentives, personnel resources, advertising, and participant retention. Although human clinical trial data and resources can provide guidance, effort also needs to be put into evaluating current practices and opportunities for process improvement that are specific to the conduct of veterinary clinical trials. Considering the power of pets as naturally occurring models of disease and as sentinels, improved conduct of veterinary clinical research has the potential to inform human health outcomes. Continued development of collaborations surrounding best practices and training opportunities in veterinary clinical research will improve the impact of veterinary clinical trials teams, while also promoting workforce development and alternate career paths for veterinary professionals.

Obtaining informed consent in veterinary clinical trials mini review

In September 2023 the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released draft guidance for comment about how informed client consent for companion animal clinical trials should be obtained. This guidance has the potential to substantially change how informed consent documents are written and presented to clients in the veterinary community. It provides specifics not only about how to obtain informed consent from owners but also the timeframe within which consent should be obtained, the formatting and language in the consent forms, and details on elements that are required to be in these consent forms. These changes will involve additional efforts by investigators to ensure compliance yet might lead to increased owner compliance and higher enrollment in clinical studies with subsequent benefits for all.

Incorporating Community Partner Perspectives on eHealth Technology Data Sharing Practices for the California Early Psychosis Intervention Network: Qualitative Focus Group Study With a User-Centered Design Approach

BACKGROUND

Increased use of eHealth technology and user data to drive early identification and intervention algorithms in early psychosis (EP) necessitates the implementation of ethical data use practices to increase user acceptability and trust.

OBJECTIVE

First, the study explored EP community partner perspectives on data sharing best practices, including beliefs, attitudes, and preferences for ethical data sharing and how best to present end-user license agreements (EULAs). Second, we present a test case of adopting a user-centered design approach to develop a EULA protocol consistent with community partner perspectives and priorities.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory, qualitative, and focus group-based study exploring mental health data sharing and privacy preferences among individuals involved in delivering or receiving EP care within the California Early Psychosis Intervention Network. Key themes were identified through a content analysis of focus group transcripts. Additionally, we conducted workshops using a user-centered design approach to develop a EULA that addresses participant priorities.

RESULTS

In total, 24 participants took part in the study (14 EP providers, 6 clients, and 4 family members). Participants reported being receptive to data sharing despite being acutely aware of widespread third-party sharing across digital domains, the risk of breaches, and motives hidden in the legal language of EULAs. Consequently, they reported feeling a loss of control and a lack of protection over their data. Participants indicated these concerns could be mitigated through user-level control for data sharing with third parties and an understandable, transparent EULA, including multiple presentation modalities, text at no more than an eighth-grade reading level, and a clear definition of key terms. These findings were successfully integrated into the development of a EULA and data opt-in process that resulted in 88.1% (421/478) of clients who reviewed the video agreeing to share data.

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the factors considered pertinent to informing data sharing practices in a mental health setting are consistent among clients, family members, and providers delivering or receiving EP care. These community partners' priorities can be successfully incorporated into developing EULA practices that can lead to high voluntary data sharing rates.

Evaluating the readability of recruitment materials in veterinary clinical research

BACKGROUND

Owner comprehension is vital to recruitment and study success, but limited information exists regarding the readability of public-facing veterinary clinical trial descriptions.

OBJECTIVES

The current study sought to evaluate the readability of public-facing online veterinary clinical trial descriptions from academic institutions and private referral practices.

ANIMALS

None.

METHODS

This prospective study assessed readability in a convenience sample of veterinary clinical trial study descriptions using 3 common methods: the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (F-K), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), and online Automatic Readability Checker (ARC). Results were compared across specialties and between academic and private institutions.

RESULTS

Grade level and readability consensus scores (RCSs) were obtained for 61 online clinical trial descriptions at universities (n = 49) and private practices (n = 12). Average grade-level RCS for study descriptions was 14.13 (range, 9-21). Using Microsoft Word, the FRES score was higher in descriptions from universities compared to private practices (P = .03), and F-K scores were lower in university compared to private practice descriptions (P = .03). FRES (P = .07), F-K (P = .12), and readability consensus (P = .17) scores obtained from ARC were not different between institution types. Forty-eight studies (79%) had RCSs over 12, equivalent to reading material at college or graduate school levels.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

Similar to other areas in veterinary communication, the evaluated veterinary clinical trial descriptions used for advertising and recruitment far exceeded the recommended 6th-grade reading level for medical information. Readability assessments are straightforward to conduct, and ensuring health literacy should be a customary best practice in veterinary medicine and clinical research.

Discharge summaries provided to owners of pets newly diagnosed with cancer exceed recommended readability levels

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the readability of discharge summaries distributed to owners of pets newly diagnosed with cancer.

SAMPLE

118 discharge summaries provided to pet owners following initial consultation.

PROCEDURES

A database search identified records of new patients that had been presented to the North Carolina State Veterinary Hospital medical oncology service between June 2017 and January 2019. Owner-directed portions of the summaries provided at the time of discharge were copied and pasted into a document and stripped of all identifying information. Readability of summaries was assessed with the use of 2 previously established readability calculators: the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) tests.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD FKGL was 11.9 ± 1.1 (median, 11.9; range, 8.6 to 15.5; target ≤ 6), and the mean ± SD FRE score was 43 ± 5.9 (median, 42.7; range, 25.5 to 58.1; target ≥ 60). There were no significant differences in FKGL or FRE scores among discharge summaries for patients with the 4 most common tumor types diagnosed or the described treatment options. Ninety-three percent (110/118) of summaries were scored as difficult or very difficult to read.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Owner-directed written information regarding a diagnosis of cancer at a single teaching hospital exceeded readability levels recommended by the American Medical Association and NIH and was above the average reading level of most US adults. Efforts to improve readability are an important component of promoting relationship-centered care and may improve owner compliance and patient outcomes.

Readability and content of online pet obesity information

OBJECTIVE

To assess the readability of pet obesity information, document the presence and absence of types of pet obesity information, and perform comparisons between dog and cat obesity information content on websites.

SAMPLE

68 websites containing pet obesity content.

PROCEDURES

Websites were systematically retrieved with a search engine and predefined search terms and phrases. For each website, pet obesity information was scored by use of 2 established readability tools: the simple measure of gobbledygook (SMOG) index and Flesch-Kincaid (FK) readability test. A directed content analysis was conducted with a codebook that assessed the presence or absence of 103 variables across 5 main topics related to pet obesity on each website.

RESULTS

The mean reading grade levels determined with the SMOG index and FK readability test were 16.61 and 9.07, respectively. Instructions for weight measurement and body condition scoring were found infrequently, as were nonmodifiable risk factors. There was a greater focus on addressing obesity through dietary changes than through increasing physical activity. Few websites recommended regular follow-up appointments with veterinarians. Weight management information and the emphasis on owners' commitment to achieve their pet's weight loss targets differed among dog- and cat-focused websites.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Results indicated that pet obesity information on the studied websites was largely inaccessible to pet owners owing to the associated high reading grade levels. Readers of that information would benefit from clarification of information gaps along with provision of guidance regarding navigating online information and counseling on the importance of nutritional and dietary reassessments for individual pets performed by veterinarians.

A CTSA One Health Alliance guidance on institutional review of veterinary clinical studies

Harmonized institutional processes and reviewer training are vital to maintain integrity and ethical rigor of the veterinary clinical research pipeline and are a prerequisite to future work that might establish centralized or single-site ethical and regulatory review to ease initiation of multi-center studies. Funded by a CTSA One Health Alliance (COHA) pilot award, a diverse working group of veterinary clinicians and institutional representatives was convened in February 2020 to develop a guidance document detailing broadly agreed upon practices for ethical review and approval of veterinary clinical studies conducted in the United States.The working group defined key areas of need for consensus, developed a set of associated guidelines, and circulated these for review by COHA's fifteen member institutions. Six focus areas were identified by the working group and included vital items of protocol review, composition of the review committee, post-approval monitoring and adverse event reporting, consideration of special circumstances such as satellite sites and the use of healthy veterinary subjects in research, and the informed consent process.This document outlines a broadly agreed-upon framework through which to approach vital items associated with veterinary clinical study protocol review and approval. These approaches represent current best practice in the review and approval of veterinary clinical studies, and can serve as a guidance for veterinary clinician-scientists and regulatory experts, to ensure robust and ethically conducted studies that can contribute to the advancement of both animal and human health.

Role of the consent form in UK veterinary practice

Background

Informed consent from the client is required before veterinary professionals may administer treatment or perform surgery on an animal patient, except in an emergency. This study investigates the potential role(s) of the consent form in the consent process in the UK.

Methods

Thematic analysis was carried out on the text contained in 39 blank consent forms sourced from veterinary practices in the UK. Analysis was conducted at the levels of topical survey and thematic summary.

Results

Consent forms were used to authorise procedures, to define proposed treatment, to offer or recommend additional procedures, to convey the risks of treatment and to document the client’s financial obligations. None of the forms analysed provided sufficient space to document the accompanying conversation. Notable omissions from the submitted forms included options for treatment and benefits of treatment.

Conclusions

The consent form acts as a record of the procedure to be performed, the associated costs and the status of the person giving consent. However, from this analysis, it often fails to record the detail of the consent discussion, an essential part of the consent process. A proposal for an improved version of a veterinary consent form is provided.

Quantitative readability analysis of websites providing information on traumatic brain injury and epilepsy: A need for clear communication

OBJECTIVE

The use of the Internet for health-related questions is increasing, but it is not clear whether individuals can understand the information available online. Most health organizations recommend that health educational materials (HEMs) be written below the sixth grade reading level. This study was designed to evaluate the readability level of available online HEMs pertaining to traumatic brain injury (TBI), epilepsy, and posttraumatic epilepsy (PTE).

METHODS

This cross-sectional readability assessment included HEMs from TBI and epilepsy stakeholder organizations and those obtained from four Internet searches. The search strategy was designed to replicate a nonmedical individual's keyword searches. Each HEM was assessed with an online automated readability tool using three indices (Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook). Findings were compared as a function of organization type (journalistic news or health organization), targeted medical condition (TBI, epilepsy, or PTE), or content topic (patient health education, clinical research education, or both).

RESULTS

Readability analysis of 405 identified HEMs revealed scores above the sixth grade reading level recommendation. Only 6.2% of individual HEMs met the sixth grade recommendation. Journalistic news organizations' HEMs had similar readability levels to health organizations' HEMs. PTE-related HEMs required the highest readability level, >11th grade (P < .001). There were significant differences in the readability scores (P < .01 for all indices) among HEMs with information on health education, research education, or both topics. The highest required readability level (>12 grade level) was for HEMs that included both health and research education.

SIGNIFICANCE

The majority of TBI-, epilepsy-, and PTE-related online HEMs do not meet the sixth grade reading recommendation. Improving the readability of HEMs may advance health literacy around TBI, epilepsy, and PTE, leading to more effective participant recruitment/retention strategies for future antiepileptogenesis trials in persons with TBI and perhaps better patient-centered outcomes.

Readability of consent forms in veterinary clinical research

Background

“Readability” of consent forms is vital to the informed consent process. The average human hospital consent form is written at a 10th grade reading level, whereas the average American adult reads at an 8th grade level. Limited information currently exists regarding the readability of veterinary general medical or clinical research consent forms.

Hypothesis/Objectives

The goal of this study was to assess the readability of veterinary clinical trial consent forms from a group of veterinary referral centers recently involved in a working group focused on veterinary clinical trial review and consent. We hypothesized that consent forms would not be optimized for client comprehension and would be written above the National Institutes of Health‐recommended 6th grade reading level.

Animals

None.

Methods

This was a prospective study assessing a convenience sample of veterinary clinical trial consent forms. Readability was assessed using 3 methods: the Flesch‐Kincaid (F‐K) Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), and the Readability Test Tool (RTT). Results were reported as mean (±SD) and compared across specialties.

Results

Fifty‐three consent forms were evaluated. Mean FRES was 37.5 ± 6.0 (target 60 or higher). Mean F‐K Grade Level was 13.0 ± 1.2 and mean RTT grade level was 12.75 ± 1.1 (target 6.0 or lower). There was substantial agreement between F‐K and RTT grade level scores (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.8).

Conclusions and Clinical Importance

No form evaluated met current health literacy recommendations for readability. A simple and readily available F‐K Microsoft‐based approach for evaluating grade level was in substantial agreement with other methods, suggesting that this approach might be sufficient for use by clinicians and administrators drafting forms for future studies.