The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Improving Participant Comprehension in the Informed Consent Process
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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.”
From Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens (2016) · cites this paper as [25]
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.”
From Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens (2016) · cites this paper as [25]
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.”
From Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens (2016) · cites this paper as [25]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 38
- 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
- Agre P., 2003, Improving informed consent: A comparison of four consent tools, Ethics and Human Research, 25, 3
- 10.1016/0160-2527(82)90026-7 · DOI
- 10.1188/05.ONF.751-755 · DOI
- 10.1136/jme.25.3.263 · DOI
- 10.1097/00126334-200302010-00008 · DOI
- 10.1200/JCO.2003.07.022 · DOI
- 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
- 10.1093/jnci/90.9.668 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb01300.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00235-4 · DOI
- 10.1136/jme.28.1.45 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.292.13.1593 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.08.023 · DOI
- 10.1191/1740774506cn133oa · DOI
- 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.05.022 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06805-2 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/jnci/93.2.139 · DOI
- 10.1097/01.qai.0000229998.59869.05 · DOI
- Kahn J.P., 1998, Beyond consent, 10.1093/oso/9780195113532.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2004.04047.x · DOI
- 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
- 10.1080/00365590410033362 · DOI
- 10.2105/AJPH.2005.076232 · DOI
- Miller C.K., 1996, The Deaconess Informed Consent Comprehension Test, Pharmacotherapy, 15, 872, 10.1002/j.1875-9114.1996.tb03004.x · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1365-2044.1998.00309.x · DOI
- 10.1136/jme.2004.009910 · DOI
- 10.1136/jme.2004.011064 · DOI
- 10.1191/1740774505cn066oa · DOI
- U.S. Department of Health And Human Services, 2004, Elements of informed consent
- 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
- 10.1016/0738-3991(96)00859-2 · DOI
- 10.1016/0168-8510(95)00805-5 · DOI
- 10.1097/00001888-200306000-00019 · DOI
- 10.1001/archinte.164.20.2201 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0738-3991(96)00968-8 · DOI
- 10.2105/AJPH.2004.041624 · DOI
- 10.1001/archinte.160.8.1142 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials
Chan, A.-W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Gotzsche, P. C., Altman, D. G., Mann, H., Berlin, J. A., Dickersin, K., Hrobjartsson, A., Schulz, K. F., Parulekar, W. R., et al. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e7586 · Cited by 6,251
Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens
Beskow, L. M. (2016) · Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev-genom-083115-022536 · Cited by 146
“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.”
Background
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