Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 408

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The informed consent of participants is ethically and legally required for most research involving human subjects. However, standardized methods for assessing the adequacy of informed consent to research are lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: We designed a brief questionnaire, the Quality of Informed Consent (QuIC), to measure subjects' actual (objective) and perceived (subjective) understanding of cancer clinical trials. The QuIC incorporates the basic elements of informed consent specified in federal regulations, assesses the therapeutic misconception (the belief that all aspects of a clinical trial are designed to directly benefit the subject), and employs the language and structure of the new National Cancer Institute template for informed consent documents. We modified the QuIC after receiving feedback from pilot tests with cancer research subjects, as well as validation from two independent expert panels. We then sent the QuIC to 287 adult cancer patients enrolled on phase I, II, or III clinical trials. Two hundred seven subjects (72%) completed the QuIC. To assess test-retest reliability, a random sample of 32 respondents was selected, of whom 17 (53%) completed the questionnaire a second time. The test-retest reliability was good with intraclass correlation coefficients of.66 for tests of objective understanding and.77 for tests of subjective understanding. The current version of the QuIC, which consists of 20 questions for objective understanding and 14 questions for subjective understanding, was tested for time and ease of administration in a sample of nine adult cancer patients. The QuIC required an average of 7.2 minutes to complete. CONCLUSIONS: The QuIC is a brief, reliable, and valid questionnaire that holds promise as a standardized way to assess the outcome of the informed consent process in cancer clinical trials.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/93.2.139

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 30 references

Cited by

See all 408

Metadata

Authors
Joffe, S., Cook, E. F., Cleary, P. D., Clark, J. W., & Weeks, J. C.
Venue
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2001-01-17
Volume
93
Issue
2
Pages
139-147
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2110337495
Cited by
408
References
30
FWCI
4.80
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: Quality of Informed Consent: a New Measure of Understanding Among Research Subjects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/93.2.139
The paper
Joffe, S., Cook, E. F., Cleary, P. D., Clark, J. W., & Weeks, J. C. (2001). Quality of Informed Consent: a New Measure of Understanding Among Research Subjects. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/93.2.139

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.