Cited by 655Ethics in Clinical ResearchEthics and bioethics in healthcarePatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey

Joffe, Steven, Cook, E Francis, Cleary, Paul D, Clark, Jeffrey W, Weeks, Jane C·2001·The Lancet

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

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(01)06805-2

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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