» Articles » PMID: 31823337

Too Dense and Too Detailed: Evaluation of the Health Literacy Attributes of an Informed Consent Document

Overview
Date 2019 Dec 12
PMID 31823337
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The US government recently updated the Common Rule, a set of federal regulations to ensure the ethical conduct of human subjects research. The new regulations require that consent documents provide information that is clear and concise enough to enable truly informed consent. This study explores potential American Indian research participants' understanding and perceptions of an example consent document, focusing on possible improvements to better serve the requirements of the revised Common Rule. Participants completed a survey that collected demographic data and measured health literacy, numeracy, and comprehension of the example document. Next, they participated in focus groups to answer open-ended questions regarding their views on the example document. We calculated mean scores and frequencies of response to analyze quantitative survey data and performed a qualitative thematic analysis of focus group transcripts. Results demonstrated that American Indian participants with relatively strong health literacy skills clearly understood key elements of the consent document, including the purpose of signing it, confidentiality, compensation, and whom to contact for questions. However, they were overwhelmed by details on research procedures and were concerned about the document's layout. To make consent documents more readily comprehensible, participants recommended the addition of headings, bullets, graphics, and relevant pictures. They also recommended a two-step consent process, comprising a short introduction to the research project followed by a longer explanation of procedures. These results illustrate the potential advantages of community engagement in drafting consent materials. Health researchers would likely benefit from community recommendations like the ones we elicited as they design consent documents adherent to the revised Common Rule.

Citing Articles

Readability of Informed Consent Forms for Medical and Surgical Clinical Procedures: A Systematic Review.

Garcia-Alvarez J, Garcia-Sanchez A Clin Pract. 2025; 15(2).

PMID: 39996696 PMC: 11854161. DOI: 10.3390/clinpract15020026.


Recommendations for developing accessible patient information leaflets for clinical trials to address English language literacy as a barrier to research participation.

Wylde V, Brennan S, Johnson E, Roberts K, Beswick A, Jameson C Trials. 2024; 25(1):624.

PMID: 39334243 PMC: 11430508. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-024-08471-5.


Characterization of key information sections in informed consent forms posted on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Gelinas L, Morrell W, Tse T, Glazier A, Zarin D, Bierer B J Clin Transl Sci. 2023; 7(1):e185.

PMID: 37745937 PMC: 10514692. DOI: 10.1017/cts.2023.605.


Uplifting the voices of rural American Indian older adults to improve understanding of physical activity behavior.

Pedersen M, Harris K, Lewis J, Grant M, Kleinmeyer C, Glass A Transl Behav Med. 2021; 11(9):1655-1664.

PMID: 34347863 PMC: 8442565. DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibab107.

References
1.
Brega A, Jiang L, Beals J, Manson S, Acton K, Roubideaux Y . Special diabetes program for Indians: reliability and validity of brief measures of print literacy and numeracy. Ethn Dis. 2012; 22(2):207-14. View

2.
Helitzer D, Hollis C, Cotner J, Oestreicher N . Health literacy demands of written health information materials: an assessment of cervical cancer prevention materials. Cancer Control. 2008; 16(1):70-8. DOI: 10.1177/107327480901600111. View

3.
Foe G, Larson E . Reading Level and Comprehension of Research Consent Forms: An Integrative Review. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2016; 11(1):31-46. DOI: 10.1177/1556264616637483. View

4.
Larson E, Foe G, Lally R . Reading Level and Length of Written Research Consent Forms. Clin Transl Sci. 2015; 8(4):355-6. PMC: 5351029. DOI: 10.1111/cts.12253. View

5.
Hansberry D, Agarwal N, Shah R, Schmitt P, Baredes S, Setzen M . Analysis of the readability of patient education materials from surgical subspecialties. Laryngoscope. 2013; 124(2):405-12. DOI: 10.1002/lary.24261. View