Readability of Participant Informed Consent Forms and Informational Documents: From Phase 3 COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials in the United States.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To assess the readability of the informed consent forms from the phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trials conducted in the United States.Patients and methods
English consent forms were used for patients in phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. Consent forms were obtained in October 2020. Using Microsoft Word tools, we analyzed the readability (ie, the ease of reading) of written consent forms and informational documents from phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials in the United States from the following manufacturers: AstraZeneca, Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax.Results
Owing to low readability and several format factors, this study determined that none of the consent forms or informational documents from the recent phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials conducted in the United States met readability standards at the recommended 7th grade readability level for the average vaccine research volunteer in any readability category. The average English-speaking vaccine trial volunteer would have great difficulty comprehending the information provided in the consent forms and informational documents. To ensure that study subjects receive and fully comprehend information regarding a clinical study and can provide reliable consent, greater attention should be given to the development and use of simplified consent forms, multimedia formatting, personal discussion, and comprehension assessments.
SUBMITTER: Bothun LS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8173482 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceInformed consent is a fundamental element of research ethics. The COVID-19 vaccine trials are high profile trials that have enrolled more than 100 000 participants. Consent documents must be succinct and understandable to ensure informed voluntary participation.ObjectiveTo assess how well informed consent documents of the COVID-19 vaccine trials achieve the ideal of being succinct and understandable, and to create a shorter, more readable document.Design, setting, and participantsThis quality improvement study collected and analyzed the informed consent documents used in 4 COVID-19 vaccine phase III randomized clinical trials to quantitatively assess readability and length and, based on this analysis, created a measurably more accessible informed consent document. Analysis was conducted from October 2020 to January 2021.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were number of words (measured as word count), time-to-read (measured at reading speeds of 175-300 words per minute), language complexity (measured using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level assessment), and readability (measured using Flesch Reading Ease Score). Secondary outcomes included clarity of how the placebo group could access the vaccine if it is proven safe and effective. The study also examined the length and readability of an improved consent document.ResultsThe 4 informed consent documents were a mean (range) of 8333 (7821 to 9340) words long, with a mean (range) 35 (32.6 to 38.9) minutes to read at 240 words per minute. All documents exceeded grade 9 language complexity and scored lower than 60 in the formal reading ease metric, which constitutes difficult. Only 1 document specified that participants in the placebo group might receive vaccine. It was possible to write a document in fewer than 3000 words with a grade 7 to 8 reading level and a formal readability score that was not difficult.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that existing COVID-19 vaccine informed consent documents were too long, difficult to read, and exceeded grade 9 in language complexity. It was possible to create a shorter, more readable informed consent document for these trials.
| S-EPMC8082317 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInformed consent documents for clinical studies should disclose all reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits. Little guidance exists on how to navigate the complexities of risk-benefit communication, especially in early clinical research. Practice-oriented development of such guidance should be informed by evidence on what and how details of risks and benefits are currently communicated.MethodWe surveyed the responsible parties of phase I/II trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov that started 2007 or later and completed between 2012 and 2016 to sample informed consent documents from a broad spectrum of early phase clinical trials. Based on an assessment matrix, we qualitatively and quantitatively assessed the informed consent documents for details of risk-benefit communication.ResultsThe risk-benefit communication in the 172 informed consent documents differed substantially in several regards. The outcome, extent, and likelihood of health risks, for example, were described in 83%, 32%, and 63% of the informed consent documents. Only 45% of informed consent documents specified the outcome of mentioned health benefits, and the extent and likelihood of health benefits were never specified. From those informed consent documents reporting risk likelihoods, only 57% added frequency numbers to words such as "common" or "rare," and even in these cases, we found strong variations for presented frequency ranges. Substantial heterogeneity also exists for how informed consent documents communicate other risk and benefit types and related safeguards.ConclusionOur study points to several shortcomings and heterogeneities in how informed consent documents communicate risks and benefits to potential research participants. Health risks, for example, should be specified with frequency numbers, and health benefits should be specified at least by mentioning their outcomes. Further demand for research and policy development is needed to harmonize risk-benefit communication and to clarify ways to specify the likelihood of health benefits.
| S-EPMC7876653 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Informed consent is essential to ethical research and is requisite to participation in clinical research. Yet most hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) informed consent forms (ICFs) are written at reading levels that are above the ability of the average person in the United States (U.S.). The recent development of ICF templates by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart Blood and Lung Institute have not resulted in increased patient comprehension of information. Barriers to creating Easy-to-Read ICFs that meet U.S. federal requirements and pass institutional review board (IRB) review are the result of multiple interconnected factors. The Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) formed an ad hoc review team to address concerns regarding the overall readability and length of ICFs used for BMT CTN trials. This paper summarizes recommendations of the review team for the development and formatting of Easy-to-Read ICFs for HCT multicenter clinical trials, the most novel of which is the use of a 2-column format. These recommendations intend to guide the ICF writing process, simplify local IRB review of the ICF, enhance patient comprehension, and improve patient satisfaction. The BMT CTN plans to evaluate the impact of the Easy-to-Read format compared with the traditional format on the informed consent process.
| S-EPMC3242929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Family-based research in genetically isolated populations is an effective approach for identifying loci influencing variation in disease traits. In common with all studies in humans, those in genetically isolated populations need ethical approval; however, existing ethical frameworks may be inadequate to protect participant privacy and confidentiality and to address participants' information needs in such populations. Using the ethical-legal guidelines of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) as a template, we compared the participant information leaflets and consent forms of studies in five European genetically isolated populations to identify additional information that should be incorporated into information leaflets and consent forms to guarantee satisfactorily informed consent. We highlight the additional information that participants require on the research purpose and the reasons why their population was chosen; on the potential risks and benefits of participation; on the opportunities for benefit sharing; on privacy; on the withdrawal of consent and on the disclosure of genetic data. This research raises some important issues that should be addressed properly and identifies relevant types of information that should be incorporated into information leaflets for this type of study.
| S-EPMC2987217 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveProviding comprehensible information is essential to the process of valid informed consent. Recruitment materials designed by sponsoring institutions in English-speaking, high-income countries are commonly translated for use in global health studies in other countries; however, key concepts are often missed, misunderstood or 'lost in translation'. The aim of this study was to explore the language barriers to informed consent, focusing on the challenges of translating recruitment materials for maternal health studies into Zambian languages.DesignWe used a qualitative approach, which incorporated a multistakeholder workshop (11 participants), in-depth interviews with researchers and translators (8 participants) and two community-based focus groups with volunteers from community advisory boards (20 participants). Content analysis was used to identify terms commonly occurring in recruitment materials prior to the workshop. The framework analysis approach was used to analyse interview data, and a simple inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyse focus group data.SettingThe study was based in Lusaka, Zambia.ResultsThe workshop highlighted difficulties in translating research terms and pregnancy-specific terms, as well as widespread concern that current templates are too long, use overly formal language and are designed with little input from local teams. Framework analysis of in-depth interviews identified barriers to participant understanding relating to design and development of recruitment materials, language, local context and communication styles. Focus group participants confirmed these findings and suggested potential solutions to ensure the language and content of recruitment materials can be better understood.ConclusionOur findings demonstrate that the way in which recruitment materials are currently designed, translated and disseminated may not enable potential trial participants to fully understand the information provided. Instead of using overly complex institutional templates, recruitment materials should be created through an iterative and interactive process that provides truly comprehensible information in a format appropriate for its intended participants.
| S-EPMC11002372 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Consenting to participate in a clinical research study after being properly and correctly informed upholds the basic ethical principle of "autonomy" in human research. The informed consent is a process by which the physician sensitizes the patient about the nature, procedures, risks benefits, treatment schedules, etc of the study in a language that is non-technical and understandable by the study participant. Informed consent document (ICD) has got two parts: the 'Subject Information Sheet' and the 'Informed Consent Form' (ICF); and they have to be approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) before administration. Consent should be obtained without any coercion. In case of a situation where a participant is not able to give informed consent (e.g. unconscious, minor or those suffering from severe mental illness or disability) or is illiterate, it has be obtained from a legally acceptable representative (LAR). If the participant or LAR is unable to read/write, then an impartial witness should be present during the entire informed consent process and must append his/her signatures to the consent form. For children < 7 years, verbal consent is essential and for mature minors (age group 7 to 18 years) informed assent should be obtained.
| S-EPMC5527718 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundState governments provide preprinted advance directive forms to the general public. However, many adults in the United States (US) lack the skills necessary to read and comprehend health care-related materials. In this study, we sought to determine the readability of state government-sponsored advance directive forms.MethodsA cross sectional study design was used. The readability of advance directive forms available online from all 50 US states and the District of Columbia was determined using 6 validated readability scales.ResultsOverall, 62 advance directive forms were obtained. For 47 states, forms were available by way of government-sponsored Web sites. The average (SD) readability (with the Flesch-Kincaid score) of all forms was grade level 11.9 (2.6). Similar results were obtained with the other readability scales. No form had a readability score at the 5th grade level or lower, the level recommended by the National Work Group on Literacy and Health. The readability of the forms exceeded this level by an average of 6.9 grade levels (95% confidence interval, 6.3-7.6; P < .001). Only 5 of the forms had a readability score at 8th grade level or lower, the average reading skill level of US adults. The readability of the forms exceeded this level by an average of 3.9 grade levels (95% confidence interval, 3.3-4.6; P < .001).ConclusionsThe readability of US state government-sponsored advance directive forms exceeds the readability level recommended by the National Work Group on Literacy and Health and the average reading skill level of most US adults. Such forms may inhibit advance care planning and therefore patient autonomy.
| S-EPMC2868033 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine whether informed consent for surgical procedures performed in US hospitals meet a minimum standard of quality, we developed and tested a quality measure of informed consent documents. DESIGN:Retrospective observational study of informed consent documents. SETTING:25 US hospitals, diverse in size and geographical region. COHORT:Among Medicare fee-for-service patients undergoing elective procedures in participating hospitals, we assessed the informed consent documents associated with these procedures. We aimed to review 100 qualifying procedures per hospital; the selected sample was representative of the procedure types performed at each hospital. PRIMARY OUTCOME:The outcome was hospital quality of informed consent documents, assessed by two independent raters using an eight-item instrument previously developed for this measure and scored on a scale of 0-20, with 20 representing the highest quality. The outcome was reported as the mean hospital document score and the proportion of documents meeting a quality threshold of 10. Reliability of the hospital score was determined based on subsets of randomly selected documents; face validity was assessed using stakeholder feedback. RESULTS:Among 2480 informed consent documents from 25 hospitals, mean hospital scores ranged from 0.6 (95% CI 0.3 to 0.9) to 10.8 (95% CI 10.0 to 11.6). Most hospitals had at least one document score at least 10 out of 20 points, but only two hospitals had >50% of their documents score above a 10-point threshold. The Spearman correlation of the measures score was 0.92. Stakeholders reported that the measure was important, though some felt it did not go far enough to assess informed consent quality. CONCLUSION:All hospitals performed poorly on a measure of informed consent document quality, though there was some variation across hospitals. Measuring the quality of hospital's informed consent documents can serve as a first step in driving attention to gaps in quality.
| S-EPMC7247389 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8603088 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFederal agencies have encouraged the use of central institutional review boards (CIRBs) for multi-site clinical trials. There is limited evidence supporting the use of CIRBs. Our aim is to evaluate how SPRINT sites regulated by CIRBs performed regarding informed consent readability and participant trial adherence compared to those regulated by local IRBs.MethodsWe conducted a cohort study using the SPRINT clinical trial. We collected the IRB of record from the stamped and approved 2012 informed consents from each of the sites. We defined CIRB as an IRB for more than one SPRINT site. Our outcomes were informed consent readability measured using the Flesch-Kincaid readability scale and trial adherence defined as a loss to follow-up, consent withdrawal, and missed last 3-month visit.ResultsSixty-one percent of all SPRINT sites used a CIRB as their IRB of record. The adjusted mean grade reading level for CIRB consents was 13.4 (95% CI 12.6-13.8) compared to 12.3 (95% CI 12.1-13.1) for non CIRB consents (p = 0.07). CIRB sites had similar rates of withdrawal of consent and loss to follow-up as non-CIRB sites; subjects missing the last appointment of the study were more likely to come from sites regulated by a CIRB. The Veterans Affairs CIRB had the lowest rate of withdrawal of consent (1.9%) and the lowest rate of missed appointments (1.9%) among CIRBs.ConclusionsNiether CIRB-regulated sites nor IRB regulated sites enforce the recommended readability level of the informed consent documents. Sites regulated by both IRBs had similar participant trial adherence.
| S-EPMC6627564 | biostudies-literature