The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Informed Consent — Why Are Its Goals Imperfectly Realized?
Abstract
We explored reasons for the failure of patients to recall major portions of the information on consent forms and in oral explanations about consent. Within one day of signing consent forms for chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or surgery, 200 cancer patients completed a test of their recall of the material in the consent explanation and filled out a questionnaire regarding their opinions of its purpose, content, and implications. Only 60 per cent understood the purpose and nature of the procedure, and only 55 per cent correctly listed even one major risk or complication. We found that three factors were related to inadequate recall: education, medical status, and the care with which patients thought they had read their consent forms before signing. Only 40 per cent of the patients had read the form "carefully." Most believed that consent forms were meant to "protect the physician's rights." Although most thought that consent forms were necessary and comprehensible and that they contained worthwhile information, the legalistic connotations of the forms appeared to lead to cursory reading and inadequate recall.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Health Literacy and Cancer Communication
Davis, T. C., Williams, M. V., Marin, E., Parker, R. M., & Glass, J. (2002) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.52.3.134 · Cited by 658
“Participant” Perceptions of Twitter Research Ethics
Fiesler, C., & Proferes, N. (2018) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305118763366 · Cited by 528
Quality of Informed Consent: a New Measure of Understanding Among Research Subjects
Joffe, S., Cook, E. F., Cleary, P. D., Clark, J. W., & Weeks, J. C. (2001) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/93.2.139 · Cited by 408
Hack, T. F., Degner, L. F., & Dyck, D. G. (1994) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)90336-0 · Cited by 329
Empty ethics: the problem with informed consent
Corrigan, O. (2003) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1046/j.1467-9566.2003.00369.x · Cited by 436
Metadata
- Authors
- Cassileth, B. R., Zupkis, R. V., Sutton-Smith, K., & March, V.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1980-04-17
- Volume
- 302
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 896-900
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2314083496
- Cited by
- 525
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 31.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Informed Consent — Why Are Its Goals Imperfectly Realized? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm198004173021605
- The paper
- Cassileth, B. R., Zupkis, R. V., Sutton-Smith, K., & March, V. (1980). Informed Consent — Why Are Its Goals Imperfectly Realized? New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198004173021605
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.