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
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.
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
Cites
Principles of Biomedical Ethics
(2012) · Thieves of Virtue · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9079.003.0009 · Cited by 13,453
What Makes Clinical Research Ethical?
Emanuel, E. J. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.20.2701 · Cited by 2,710
Available, N. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.284.23.3043 · Cited by 2,344
False Hopes and Best Data: Consent to Research and the Therapeutic Misconception
Appelbaum, P. S., Roth, L. H., Lidz, C. W., Benson, P., & Winslade, W. (1987) · The Hastings Center Report · doi:10.2307/3562038 · Cited by 954
Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research.
(1986) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-105-6-989_1 · Cited by 868
Informed Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice
Appelbaum, P. S., Lidz, C. W., & Meisel, A. (1987) · eScholarship@UMassChan · Cited by 733
Informed Consent — Why Are Its Goals Imperfectly Realized?
Cassileth, B. R., Zupkis, R. V., Sutton-Smith, K., & March, V. (1980) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198004173021605 · Cited by 525
Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials.
Daugherty, C., Ratain, M. J., Grochowski, E., Stocking, C., Kodish, E., Mick, R., & Siegler, M. (1995) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1995.13.5.1062 · Cited by 515
Taylor, K. M., Margolese, R. G., & Soskolne, C. L. (1984) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198405243102106 · Cited by 407
Designing and Conducting Health Surveys
Aday, L. A. (1998) · Journal For Healthcare Quality · doi:10.1097/01445442-199805000-00015 · Cited by 391
Cited by
Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey
Joffe, S., Cook, E. F., Cleary, P. D., Clark, J. W., & Weeks, J. C. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(01)06805-2 · Cited by 655
Self-citationAssessing Decisional Capacity for Clinical Research or Treatment: A Review of Instruments
Dunn, L. B., Nowrangi, M. A., Palmer, B. W., Jeste, D. V., & Saks, E. R. (2006) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.2006.163.8.1323 · Cited by 464
Informed Consent in Genomics and Genetic Research
McGuire, A. L., & Beskow, L. M. (2010) · Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev-genom-082509-141711 · Cited by 204
Beardsley, E., Jefford, M., & Mileshkin, L. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2006.10.3341 · Cited by 162
Improving Participant Comprehension in the Informed Consent Process
Cohn, E., & Larson, E. (2007) · Journal of Nursing Scholarship · doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00180.x · Cited by 115
Metadata
- Authors
- Joffe, S., Cook, E. F., Cleary, P. D., Clark, J. W., & Weeks, J. C.
- Venue
- JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.