Informed consent and patient's rights documents: a right, a rite, or a rewrite?

Views of clinical trial participants on the readability and their understanding of informed consent documents

BACKGROUND

One of the ethical imperatives for a valid consent process in clinical medication trials is that the process be guided by and recorded in an informed consent document (ICD). Concerns have been expressed, however, about readability and participant understanding of ICDs, which are often 10-20 pages long. Objective measures of readability and understanding have been used to support these concerns in several articles, but surprisingly the voice of trial participants on ICDs has not been heard in previous studies. Hence, this study compares participants' subjective views on readability and their understanding of ICDs with those ICDs' objective readability scores. It also evaluates whether family, friends, and additional aids would foster better understanding of the ICD.

METHODS

Sixty current trial participants rated the readability and their understanding of deidentified standard ICDs. These had been sourced from two multicenter international Phase III trials on medication for diabetes mellitus and cancer.

RESULTS

Less than 10% of participants considered the ICDs difficult to read or difficult to understand in spite of objective readability scores at levels of about 12th grade education, but about a quarter considered the ICDs to be too technical. Participants gave mixed responses about friends or family members helping or the need for videos, pictures, additional reading material, and frequently answered questions (FAQ) sheets as an aid to their understanding.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest individual clinical trial participants should be engaged on their views of an ICD, for doing so is part of informed consent as a process rather than consent being merely focused on written information. Such participant-specific engagement should guide whether family and friends, videos, pictures, additional reading material, and FAQ sheets would be of assistance in improving understanding.

Informed consent for human genetic and genomic studies: a systematic review

As genetic and genomic studies grow in scale, there are ethical concerns related to the collection and use of genetic information. The emergence of large public databases potentially redefine the terms of participation in genetic and genomic research, and suggests the changing application of traditional ethical principles such as privacy or consent. For this study, we wanted to see whether such developments are reflected in the informed consent processes in human genetic and genomic studies. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of the empirical studies that examined informed consent involving large genetic databases in human genetic and genomic studies, grouped the identified issues related to the different stakeholders (including subjects, researchers, and institutional review boards) and discussed the limitations and implications of these findings. Major themes related to the place of bioethical considerations, procured tissues, people involved, process of informed consent and study procedures. Frequently raised issues included confidentiality of participants, documentation of informed consent, public attitudes, future use of participant samples or data, and disclosure of results. Awareness and attention to these bioethical issues as well as assiduousness in managing these concerns in genetic/genomic research would further strengthen and safeguard the rights, safety and well-being of genetic research participants.

Achieving new levels of recall in consent to research by combining remedial and motivational techniques

INTRODUCTION

Research supports the efficacy of both a remedial consent procedure (corrected feedback (CF)) and a motivational consent procedure (incentives) for improving recall of informed consent to research. Although these strategies were statistically superior to standard consent, effects were modest and not clinically significant. This study examines a combined incentivised consent and CF procedure that simplifies the cognitive task and increases motivation to learn consent information.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 104 individuals consenting to an unrelated host study to a consent as usual (CAU) condition (n=52) or an incentivised CF (ICF) condition (n=52). All participants were told they would be quizzed on their consent recall following their baseline assessment and at 4 monthly follow-ups. ICF participants were also informed that they would earn $5 for each correct answer and receive CF as needed.

RESULTS

Quiz scores in the two conditions did not differ at the first administration (p=0.39, d=0.2); however, ICF scores were significantly higher at each subsequent administration (second: p=0.003, Cohen's d=0.6; third: p<0.0001, d=1.4; fourth: p<0.0001, d=1.6; fifth: p<0.0001, d=1.8).

CONCLUSIONS

The ICF procedure increased consent recall from 72% to 83%, compared with the CAU condition in which recall decreased from 69% to 59%. This supports the statistical and clinical utility of a combined remedial and motivational consent procedure for enhancing recall of study information and human research protections.

Addressing risks to advance mental health research

IMPORTANCE

Risk communication and management are essential to the ethical conduct of research, yet addressing risks may be time consuming for investigators and institutional review boards may reject study designs that seem too risky. This can discourage needed research, particularly in higher-risk protocols or those enrolling potentially vulnerable individuals, such as those with some level of suicidality. Improved mechanisms for addressing research risks may facilitate much needed psychiatric research.

OBJECTIVE

To provide mental health researchers with practical approaches to (1) identify and define various intrinsic research risks, (2) communicate these risks to others (eg, potential participants, regulatory bodies, and society), (3) manage these risks during the course of a study, and (4) justify the risks.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

As part of a National Institute of Mental Health-funded scientific meeting series, a public conference and a closed-session expert panel meeting were held on managing and disclosing risks in mental health clinical trials. The expert panel reviewed the literature with a focus on empirical studies and developed recommendations for best practices and further research on managing and disclosing risks in mental health clinical trials. No institutional review board-review was required because there were no human subjects.

FINDINGS

Challenges, current data, practical strategies, and topics for future research are addressed for each of 4 key areas pertaining to management and disclosure of risks in clinical trials: identifying and defining risks, communicating risks, managing risks during studies, and justifying research risks.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Empirical data on risk communication, managing risks, and the benefits of research can support the ethical conduct of mental health research and may help investigators better conceptualize and confront risks and to gain institutional review board-approval.

National survey of patients' bill of rights statutes

BACKGROUND

Despite vigorous national debate between 1999-2001 the federal patients' bill of rights (PBOR) was not enacted. However, states have enacted legislation and the Joint Commission defined an accreditation standard to present patients with their rights. Because such initiatives can be undermined by overly complex language, we surveyed the readability of hospital PBOR documents as well as texts mandated by state law.

METHODS

State Web sites and codes were searched to identify PBOR statutes for general patient populations. The rights addressed were compared with the 12 themes presented in the American Hospital Association's (AHA) PBOR text of 2002. In addition, we obtained PBOR texts from a sample of hospitals in each state. Readability was evaluated using Prose, a software program which reports an average of eight readability formulas.

RESULTS

Of 23 states with a PBOR statute for the general public, all establish a grievance policy, four protect a private right of action, and one stipulates fines for violations. These laws address an average of 7.4 of the 12 AHA themes. Nine states' statutes specify PBOR text for distribution to patients. These documents have an average readability of 15th grade (range, 11.6, New York, to 17.0, Minnesota). PBOR documents from 240 US hospitals have an average readability of 14th grade (range, 8.2 to 17.0).

CONCLUSIONS

While the average U.S. adult reads at an 8th grade reading level, an advanced college reading level is routinely required to read PBOR documents. Patients are not likely to learn about their rights from documents they cannot read.

Lay concepts in informed consent to biomedical research: the capacity to understand and appreciate risk

Persons generally must give their informed consent to participate in research. To provide informed consent persons must be given information regarding the study in simple, lay language. Consent must be voluntary, and persons giving consent must be legally competent to consent and possess the capacity to understand and appreciate the information. This paper examines the relationship between the obligation to disclose information regarding risks and the requirement that persons have the capacity to understand and appreciate the information. There has been insufficient attention to the extent to which persons must be able to understand and appreciate study information in order to have their consent deemed valid when the information is provided in simple, lay language. This paper argues that (1) the capacity to understand and appreciate information that should be deemed necessary to give valid consent should be defined by the capacity of the typical, cognitively normal adult and (2) the capacity of the typical, cognitively normal adult to understand and appreciate the concept of risk is limited. Therefore, (3) all things being equal, potential subjects must possess a limited capacity to understand and appreciate risk to be deemed competent to consent to research participation. (4) In some cases investigators ought to require that persons possess a greater than typical capacity to understand and appreciate risk.

Describing randomisation: patients' and the public's preferences compared with clinicians' practice

Explaining the concept of randomisation in simple terms to patients during the discussion of randomised clinical trials can be a difficult task for many health care professionals. We report the results of a questionnaire-based survey, using seven descriptions of randomisation taken from Corbett's study. We examined the preferences of the general public and patients towards the descriptions and compared the results with the clinicians' choice. Participants in the survey were 341 lay people without cancer, 200 patients with cancer and 200 oncologists from cancer centres throughout the UK. It was difficult to identify 'the best' way to describe the process of randomisation. The two most favoured statements for patients and members of the public included a very explicit statement that mentioned 'a computer', 'chance' and 'not the doctor's or patient's decision' and a succinct statement that played down the role of 'chance'. Clinicians chose neither of these statements as closely resembling their own practice. Patients and members of the public most disliked the statement 'a computer will perform the equivalent of tossing a coin to allocate you to one of two methods of treatment'. This analogy used by 26% of oncologists, was viewed as trivialising and upsetting in the context of determining treatment for life threatening disease.