» Articles » PMID: 12594317

Readability Standards for Informed-consent Forms As Compared with Actual Readability

Overview
Journal N Engl J Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2003 Feb 21
PMID 12594317
Citations 212
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Institutional review boards (IRBs) are charged with safeguarding potential research subjects with limited literacy but may have an inadvertent role in promulgating unreadable consent forms. We hypothesized that text provided by IRBs in informed-consent forms falls short of the IRBs' own readability standards and that readability is influenced by the level of research activity, local literacy rates, and federal oversight.

Methods: To test these hypotheses, we conducted a cross-sectional study linking data from several public-use sources. A total of 114 Web sites of U.S. medical schools were surveyed for IRB readability standards and informed-consent-form templates. Actual readability was measured with the Flesch-Kincaid scale, which assigns a score on the basis of the minimal grade level required to read and understand English text (range, 0 to 12). Data on the level of research activity, local literacy rates, and federal oversight were obtained from organizational Web sites.

Results: The average readability score for text provided by IRBs was 10.6 (95 percent confidence interval, 10.3 to 10.8) on the Flesch-Kincaid scale. Specific readability standards, found on 61 Web sites (54 percent), ranged from a 5th-grade reading level to a 10th-grade reading level. The mean Flesch-Kincaid scores for the readability of sample text provided by IRBs exceeded the stated standard by 2.8 grade levels (95 percent confidence interval, 2.4 to 3.2; P<0.001). Readability was not associated with either the level of research funding (P=0.89) or local rates of literacy (P=0.92). However, the 52 schools that had been made subject to oversight by the Office for Human Research Protections (46 percent) had lower Flesch-Kincaid scores than the other schools (10.2 vs. 10.9, P=0.005).

Conclusions: IRBs commonly provide text for informed-consent forms that falls short of their own readability standards. Federal oversight is associated with better readability.

Citing Articles

Supplementing Consent for a Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study of Infants With Antenatal Opioid Exposure: Development and Assessment of a Digital Tool.

Newman J, Clarke L, Athimuthu P, Dhawan M, Owen S, Beiersdorfer T JMIR Form Res. 2025; 9:e59954.

PMID: 40036491 PMC: 11896084. DOI: 10.2196/59954.


Assessing the language availability, readability, suitability and comprehensibility of heat-health messaging content on health authority webpages and online resources in Canada.

Tetzlaff E, Janetos K, Wagar K, Mourad F, Gorman M, Gallant V PEC Innov. 2025; 6:100368.

PMID: 39896057 PMC: 11786110. DOI: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100368.


Informed Consent in Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery: Patients' Perspective of a Tertiary Service Process.

Verma V, Lucena H, Pandeva I, Pradhan A Int Urogynecol J. 2025; .

PMID: 39888384 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-025-06055-8.


Factors Influencing Informed Consent Preferences in Digital Health Research: Survey Study of Prospective Participants.

McInnis B, Pindus R, Kareem D, Vital D, Hekler E, Nebeker C J Med Internet Res. 2025; 27:e63349.

PMID: 39847412 PMC: 11803319. DOI: 10.2196/63349.


The literacy barrier in clinical trial consents: a retrospective analysis.

Mirza F, Wu E, Abdulrazeq H, Connolly I, Tang O, Zogg C EClinicalMedicine. 2025; 75:102814.

PMID: 39763593 PMC: 11701435. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102814.