Cited by 115Ethics in Clinical ResearchEthics and bioethics in healthcarePatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Improving Participant Comprehension in the Informed Consent Process

Cohn, Elizabeth, Larson, Elaine·2007·Journal of Nursing Scholarship

Abstract

Purpose: To critically analyze studies published within the past decade about participants' comprehension of informed consent in clinical research and to identify promising intervention strategies. Design:Integrative review of literature. Methods: The Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Inclusion criteria included studies (a) published between January 1, 1996 and January 1, 2007, (b) designed as descriptive or interventional studies of comprehension of informed consent for clinical research, (c) conducted in nonpsychiatric adult populations who were either patients or volunteer participants, (d) written in English, and (e) published in peer‐reviewed journals. Findings: Of the 980 studies identified, 319 abstracts were screened, 154 studies were reviewed, and 23 met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen studies (57%) were descriptive, and 10 (43%) were interventional. Interventions tested included simplified written consent documents, multimedia approaches, and the use of a trained professional (consent educator) to assist in the consent process. Collectively, no single intervention strategy was consistently associated with improved comprehension. Studies also varied in regard to the definition of comprehension and the tools used to measure it. Conclusions: Despite increasing regulatory scrutiny, deficiencies still exist in participant comprehension of the research in which they participate, as well as differences in how comprehension is measured and assessed. No single intervention was identified as consistently successful for improving participant comprehension, and results indicated that any successful consent process should at a minimum include various communication modes and is likely to require one‐to‐one interaction with someone knowledgeable about the study.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00180.x

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

  • The available evidence on interventions to improve informed consent is notably limited, with studies often suffering from lack of power, nonrandomized designs, poor generalizability, questionable methods for measuring comprehension outcomes, and/or too narrow a focus on a single aspect of the consent process.

    “However, all four reviews found the available evidence notably limited, with the studies often suffering from lack of power, nonrandomized designs, poor generalizability, questionable methods for measuring comprehension outcomes, and/or too narrow a focus on a single aspect of the consent process.”
  • Across four systematic reviews, the only intervention consistently shown to be effective was one-on-one discussion with a person knowledgeable about the study.

    “These attempts have met with minimal success; across four systematic reviews (25, 39, 100, 136), the only intervention consistently shown to be effective was one-on-one discussion with a person knowledgeable about the study.”
  • Interventions to improve informed consent processes and participant understanding have met with minimal success.

    “These attempts have met with minimal success; across four systematic reviews (25, 39, 100, 136), the only intervention consistently shown to be effective was one-on-one discussion with a person knowledgeable about the study.”

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Aaronson N.K., 1996, Telephone‐based nursing intervention improves the effectiveness of the informed consent process in cancer clinical trials, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 14, 948, 10.1200/JCO.1996.14.3.984 · DOI
  2. Agre P., 2003, Improving informed consent: A comparison of four consent tools, Ethics and Human Research, 25, 3
  3. 10.1016/0160-2527(82)90026-7 · DOI
  4. 10.1188/05.ONF.751-755 · DOI
  5. 10.1136/jme.25.3.263 · DOI
  6. 10.1097/00126334-200302010-00008 · DOI
  7. 10.1200/JCO.2003.07.022 · DOI
  8. Daugherty C.K., 1999, Impact of therapeutic research on informed consent and the ethics of clinical trials: A medical oncology perspective, Journal of Nursing Oncology, 17, 1601
  9. 10.1093/jnci/90.9.668 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb01300.x · DOI
  11. 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00235-4 · DOI
  12. 10.1136/jme.28.1.45 · DOI
  13. 10.1001/jama.292.13.1593 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.08.023 · DOI
  15. 10.1191/1740774506cn133oa · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.05.022 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06805-2 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1093/jnci/93.2.139 · DOI
  19. 10.1097/01.qai.0000229998.59869.05 · DOI
  20. Kahn J.P., 1998, Beyond consent, 10.1093/oso/9780195113532.001.0001 · DOI
  21. 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2004.04047.x · DOI
  22. Lindegger G., 2006, Beyond the checklist: Assessing understanding for HIV vaccine trial participation in South Africa, Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, 43, 560, 10.1097/01.qai.0000247225.37752.f5 · DOI
  23. 10.1080/00365590410033362 · DOI
  24. 10.2105/AJPH.2005.076232 · DOI
  25. Miller C.K., 1996, The Deaconess Informed Consent Comprehension Test, Pharmacotherapy, 15, 872, 10.1002/j.1875-9114.1996.tb03004.x · DOI
  26. 10.1046/j.1365-2044.1998.00309.x · DOI
  27. 10.1136/jme.2004.009910 · DOI
  28. 10.1136/jme.2004.011064 · DOI
  29. 10.1191/1740774505cn066oa · DOI
  30. U.S. Department of Health And Human Services, 2004, Elements of informed consent
  31. Verástegui E.L.(2006).Consenting of the vulnerable: The informed consent procedure in advanced cancer patients in Mexico. Retrieved October 31 2006 fromhttp://www.biomedcentral.com/1472‐69399/7/13 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/0738-3991(96)00859-2 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/0168-8510(95)00805-5 · DOI
  34. 10.1097/00001888-200306000-00019 · DOI
  35. 10.1001/archinte.164.20.2201 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/S0738-3991(96)00968-8 · DOI
  37. 10.2105/AJPH.2004.041624 · DOI
  38. 10.1001/archinte.160.8.1142 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cohn, E., & Larson, E.
Affiliations
Adelphi University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Cohn, Elizabeth
  • Larson, Elaine
Venue
Journal of Nursing Scholarship
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-08-23
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
273-280
ISSN
  • 0363-2792 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-6546
  • 1547-5069
OpenAlex
W2163848410
Cited by
115
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 9
FWCI
1.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Nursing Scholarship (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, participant comprehension, clinical research participants
MeSH terms
Informed Consent, 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