Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey
Abstract
Background Investigators have to obtain informed consent before enrolling participants in clinical trials. We wanted to measure the quality of understanding among participants in clinical trials of cancer therapies, to identify correlates of increased understanding, and to assess providers' beliefs about clinical research. We also sought evidence of therapeutic misconceptions in participants and providers. Methods We sent a standard questionnaire to 287 adult patients with cancer who had recently enrolled in a clinical trial at one of three affiliated institutions, and surveyed the provider who obtained each patient's consent. Findings 207 of 287 (72%) patients responded. 90% (186) of these respondents were satisfied with the informed consent process and most considered themselves to be well informed. Nevertheless, many did not recognise non-standard treatment (74%), the potential for incremental risk from participation (63%), the unproven nature of the treatment (70%), the uncertainty of benefits to self (29%), or that trials are done mainly to benefit future patients (25%). In multivariate analysis, increased knowledge was associated with college education, speaking only English at home, use of the US National Cancer Institute consent form template, not signing the consent form at initial discussion, presence of a nurse, and careful reading of the consent form. Only 28 of 61 providers (46%) recognised that the main reason for clinical trials is benefit to future patients. I…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many participants, including biobank participants, do not understand the information disclosed to them.
“and, not surprisingly, many participants do not understand the information disclosed (4–6,70,71, 83, 87, 97), including biobank participants (93,104,114).”
From Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens (2016) · cites this paper as [71]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens
Beskow, L. M. (2016) · Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev-genom-083115-022536 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Improving the informed consent process for research subjects with low literacy: a systematic review
Tamariz, L., Palacio, A., Robert, M., & Marcus, E. N. (2013) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2133-2 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Working With a Palliative Care Team
Wiebe, L. A., & Von Roenn, J. H. (2010) · The Cancer Journal · doi:10.1097/ppo.0b013e3181f28ae6 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
- Authors
- Joffe, S., Cook, E. F., Cleary, P. D., Clark, J. W., & Weeks, J. C.
- Affiliations
- Boston Children's Hospital (US)
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Weeks, Jane C
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2001-11
- Volume
- 358
- Issue
- 9295
- Pages
- 1772-1777
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W1964708144
- Cited by
- 655
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 40
- FWCI
- 21.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Lancet (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (T32 HS 00063)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Keywords
- informed consent, cancer clinical trials, therapeutic misconception, participant comprehension, risk awareness, patient satisfaction
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Attitude to Health, Clinical Trials as Topic, Female, Humans, Informed Consent, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Physician-Patient Relations, Surveys and Questionnaires, Disclosure, Comprehension
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review