Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Barfield RC, Church C . Informed consent in pediatric clinical trials. Curr Opin Pediatr 2005; 17: 20–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Raich PC, Plomer KD, Coyne CA . Literacy, comprehension, and informed consent in clinical research. Cancer Invest 2001; 19: 437–445.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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: 1772–1777.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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: 409–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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: 668–674.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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: 836–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Stenson BJ, Becher JC, McIntosh N . Neonatal research: the parental perspective. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2004; 89: F321–F323.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Larson E, Foe G, Lally R . Reading level and length of written research consent forms. Clin Transl Sci 2015; 8: 355–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Malik L, Kuo J, Yip D, Mejia A . How well informed is the informed consent for cancer clinical trials? Clin Trials 2014; 11: 686–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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: 234–41 e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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: 640–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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: 308–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Flory J, Emanuel E . Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. Jama 2004; 292: 1593–1601.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 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: 1301–1305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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: 606–611.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Agre P, Rapkin B . Improving informed consent: a comparison of four consenttools. IRB 2003; 25: 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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: 173–178.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Eder ML, Yamokoski AD, Wittmann PW, Kodish ED . Improving informed consent: suggestions from parents of children with leukemia. Pediatrics 2007; 119: e849–e859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Masera G, D'Angio G . A proposed preamble to informed consent documents. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2010; 55: 14–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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: 872–878.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 Hum Res 2015; 37: 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kamath A, Rathnakar UP, Shenoy KA . Willingness to participate in a clinical trial and understanding of informed consent information among medical students. Indian J Med Ethics 2014; 11: 16–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Montalvo W, Larson E . Participant comprehension of research for which they volunteer: a systematic review. J Nurs Scholarsh 2014; 46: 423–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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: 877–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ghafurian R . Dental school patients' understanding of informed consent. J Dent Educ 2009; 73: 1394–1400.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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: 873–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bjorn E, Rossel P, Holm S . Can the written information to research subjects be improved? An empirical study. J Med Ethics 1999; 25: 263–267.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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: 708–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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: 1008–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Beskow LM, Friedman JY, Hardy NC, Lin L, Weinfurt KP . Developing a simplified consent form for biobanking. PLoS ONE 2010; 5: e13302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by NICHD Bioethics Supplement 3U10HD068263-01S1, and is listed on clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01704560. We wish to thank the study coordinators, Elizabeth Werner, MPH, Tanya Scalise, RN, BSN, and Deanna Maffett, RN, the neonatal faculty and fellows and Christine Trahms, BS for their help. We thank the ‘Randomized Controlled Trial of the Effect Of Hydrocortisone on Survival Without Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia and on Neurodevelopmental Outcomes at 22–26 Months of Age in Intubated Infants <30 Weeks Gestation Age’ (‘Hydrocortisone’) subcommittee of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s Neonatal Research Network (NRN), which agreed to the use of the modified consent forms. We similarly thank the Rochester center investigators of the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute’s Prematurity and Respiratory Outcome Program (PROP) for allowing modified consent forms. We also thank the families who agreed to participate, without whom the work would not have been possible.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C T D’Angio.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on the Journal of Perinatology website

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

D’Angio, C., Wang, H., Hunn, J. et al. Permission form synopses to improve parents’ understanding of research: a randomized trial. J Perinatol 37, 735–739 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2017.26

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2017.26

Search

Quick links