More Information, Less Understanding: A Randomized Study on Consent Issues in Neonatal Research

Author:

Freer Yvonne1,McIntosh Neil2,Teunisse Saskia3,Anand Kanwaljeet J. S.4,Boyle Elaine M.1

Affiliation:

1. Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Simpson Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

2. Department of Neonatology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

3. Stichting SHDH, Locatie Janskliniek, Haarlem, Netherlands

4. Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas

Abstract

BACKGROUND. Valid consent for research requires comprehensive and understandable information to be disclosed to participants. The way that information is shared varies, but regulatory bodies usually determine style. Some reports have suggested that although information may be all-inclusive, it does little to support understanding. OBJECTIVE. To explore the impact of various information-sharing approaches on parents' understanding of a research study and the validity of their consent. METHODS. This was a randomized, controlled trial. Parents of immature but well infants admitted to a large tertiary NICU in Edinburgh, Scotland, were randomly assigned within 72 hours of their infant's admission to receive 1 of 2 information leaflets, with or without a standardized verbal explanation, for a hypothetical intensive care research study. The leaflets differed in length and in the amount of detail in which the study process, risks, benefits, and patient rights were described. A questionnaire was used to elicit understanding about the purpose of the research, design of the study, procedures involved, and the consent process. RESULTS. Forty-one parents participated in the study. Those who received the longer leaflet without verbal explanation gained only limited understanding of the purpose of the research. The procedures involved in the study were understood better by those who received the shorter leaflet. Issues relating to consent and study design were readily understood in all groups. Irrespective of documentation style, verbal explanation significantly improved understanding. Differences in understanding had little effect on whether a parent would enroll his or her infant into the study. CONCLUSIONS. Verbal explanation significantly enhances understanding of the research process for participants regardless of the style of written documentation. However, shorter written information may lead to better understanding than lengthy, more complex documentation.

Publisher

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)

Subject

Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health

Reference24 articles.

1. del Carmen MG, Joffe S. Informed consent for medical treatment and research: a review. Oncologist. 2005;10(8):636–641

2. Office of Human Subjects Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 1979. Available at: http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html#goc1. Accessed October 15, 2007

3. National Research Ethics Service. Information Sheets & Consent Forms Guidance for Researchers & Reviewers. London, United Kingdom: National Patient Safety Agency; 2007. Available at: www.nres.npsa.nhs.uk/rec-community/guidance/#PIS. Accessed March 11, 2009

4. US Federal Government. General requirements for informed consent. In: Code of Federal Regulations. 45 CFR 46.116. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 2005. Available at: www.hhs.gov/ohrp/documents/OHRPRegulations.pdf. Accessed September 29, 2007

5. Beardsley E, Jefford M, Mileshkin L. Longer consent forms for clinical trials compromise patient understanding: so why are they lengthening?J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(9):e13–e14

Cited by 45 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3