Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Use of a modified informed consent process among vulnerable patients

A descriptive study

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 01 September 2006

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about patient characteristics associated with comprehension of consent information, and whether modifications to the consent process can promote understanding.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a modified research consent process, and determine whether literacy and demographic characteristics are associated with understanding consent information.

DESIGN: Descriptive study of a modified consent process: consent form (written at a sixth-grade level) read to participants, combined with 7 comprehension questions and targeted education, repeated until comprehension achieved (teach-to-goal).

PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and four ethnically diverse subjects, aged ≥50, consenting for a trial to improve the forms used for advance directives.

MEASUREMENTS: Number of passes through the consent process required to achieve complete comprehension. Literacy assessed in English and Spanish with the Short Form Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (scores 0 to 36).

RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 61 years and 40% had limited literacy (s-TOHFLA<23). Only 28% of subjects answered all comprehension questions correctly on the first pass. After adjustment, lower literacy (P=.04) and being black (P=.03) were associated with requiring more passes through the consent process. Not speaking English as a primary language was associated with requiring more passes through the consent process in bivariate analyses (P<.01), but not in multivariable analyses (P>.05). After the second pass, most subjects (80%) answered all questions correctly. With a teach-to-goal strategy, 98% of participants who engaged in the consent process achieved complete comprehension.

CONCLUSIONS: Lower literacy and minority status are important determinants of understanding consent information. Using a modified consent process, little additional education was required to achieve complete comprehension, regardless of literacy or language barriers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wendler D. Can we ensure that all research subjects give valid consent? Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2201–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 2001;358:1772–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Weiss BD, Blanchard JS, McGee DL, et al. Illiteracy among Medicaid recipients and its relationship to health care costs. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 1994;5:99–111.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Stedman LD, Kaestle CF. Literacy and reading performance in the United States from 1880 to the present. In: Kaestle CF, ed. Literacy in the United States: Readers and Reading Since 1880. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1991:75–128.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Levine R. Ethics and Regulations of Clinical Research. 2nd edn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Brancati FL. Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:721–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Murgatroyd RJ, Cooper RM. Readability of informed consent forms. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1991;48:2651–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Grunder TM. On the readability of surgical consent forms. N Engl J Med. 1980;302:900–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Davis TC, Holcombe RF, Berkel HJ, Pramanik S, Divers SG. Informed consent for clinical trials: a comparative study of standard versus simplified forms. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:668–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Malviya S, Philipson SJ. Improving the readability and processability of a pediatric informed consent document: effects on parents’ understanding. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:347–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Campbell FA, Goldman BD, Boccia ML, Skinner M. The effect of format modifications and reading comprehension on recall of informed consent information by low-income parents: a comparison of print, video, and computer-based presentations. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;53:205–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Young DR, Hooker DT, Freeberg FE. Informed consent documents: increasing comprehension by reducing reading level. IRB. 1990;12:1–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rogers CG, Tyson JE, Kennedy KA, Broyles RS, Hickman JF. Conventional consent with opting in versus simplified consent with opting out: an exploratory trial for studies that do not increase patient risk. J Pediatr. 1998;132:606–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bjorn E, Rossel P, Holm S. Can the written information to research subjects be improved?—An empirical study. J Med Ethics. 1999;25:263–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Murphy DA, O’Keefe ZH, Kaufman AH. Improving comprehension and recall of information for an HIV vaccine trial among women at risk for HIV: reading level simplification and inclusion of pictures to illustrate key concepts. AIDS Educ Prev. 1999;11:389–99.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Dresden GM, Levitt MA. Modifying a standard industry clinical trial consent form improves patient information retention as part of the informed consent process. Acad Emerg Med. 2001;8:246–52.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:139–47.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Coletti AS, Heagerty P, Sheon AR, et al. Randomized, controlled evaluation of a prototype informed consent process for HIV vaccine efficacy trials. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003;32:161–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2004;292:1593–601.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Miller CK, O’Donnell DC, Searight HR, Barbarash RA. The Deaconess Informed Consent Comprehension Test: an assessment tool for clinical research subjects. Pharmacotherapy. 1996;16:872–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Taub HA, Baker MT. The effect of repeated testing upon comprehension of informed consent materials by elderly volunteers. Exp Aging Res. 1983;9:135–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Taub HA, Kline GE, Baker MT. The elderly and informed consent: effects of vocabulary level and corrected feedback. Exp Aging Res. 1981;7:137–46.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wirshing DA, Wirshing WC, Marder SR, Liberman RP, Mintz J. Informed consent: assessment of comprehension. Am J Psychiatry. 1998;155:1508–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Stiles PG, Poythress NG, Hall A, Falkenbach D, Williams R. Improving understanding of research consent disclosures among persons with mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2001;52:780–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Paasche-Orlow MK, Riekert KA, Bilderback A, et al. Tailored education may reduce health literacy disparities in asthma self-management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;172:980–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sudore RL, Brody R, Lin L, Schillinger D. Code status unknown: tailoring an advanced health care directive form to the literacy levels of patients at a public hospital. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17 (suppl 1):88.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schillinger D, Grumbach K, Piette J, et al. Association of health literacy with diabetes outcomes. JAMA. 2002;288:475–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tannenbaum S. The eye chart and Dr. Snellen. J Am Optom Assoc. 1971;42:89–90.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP, Rogers RL, Chissom BS. Derivation of anew readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch report 8–75. Memphis: Naval Air Station; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  30. McLaughlin GH. SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Reading. 1969;12:639–46.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Borson S, Scanlan JM, Chen P, Ganguli M. The Mini-Cog as a screen for dementia: validation in a population-based sample. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51:1451–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Baker DW, Williams MV, Parker RM, Gazmararian JA, Nurss J. Development of a brief test to measure functional health literacy. Patient Educ Couns. 1999;38:33–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. STATA. Statistics/Data Analysis. Intercooled, Version 8.0. College Station, TX: STATA; 1984–2003. Available at: http://www.stata.com. Accessed December 14, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Corbie-Smith GM. Minority recruitment and participation in health research. NC Med J. 2004;65:385–7.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Torke AM, Corbie-Smith GM, Branch WT Jr. African American patients’ perspectives on medical decision making. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:525–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cooper LA, Roter DL, Johnson RL, Ford DE, Steinwachs DM, Powe NR. Patient-centered communication, ratings of care, and concordance of patient and physician race. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:907–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Davis TC, Fredrickson DD, Arnold C, Murphy PW, Herbst M, Bocchini JA. A polio immunization pamphlet with increased appeal and simplified language does not improve comprehension to an acceptable level. Patient Educ Couns. 1998;33:25–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Davis TC, Bocchini JA Jr, Fredrickson D, et al. Parent comprehension of polio vaccine information pamphlets. Pediatrics. 1996;97(part 1): 804–10.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Coyne CA, Xu R, Raich P, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of an easy-to-read informed consent statement for clinical trial participation: a study of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:836–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, et al. The health care experience of patients with low literacy. Arch Fam Med. 1996;5:329–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Schillinger D, Bindman A, Wang F, Stewart A, Piette J. Functional health literacy and the quality of physician-patient communication among diabetes patients. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;52:315–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Taub HA, Baker MT, Kline GE, Sturr JF. Comprehension of informed consent information by young-old through old-old volunteers. Exp Aging Res. 1987;13:173–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Leyva M, Sharif I, Ozuah PO. Health literacy among Spanish-speaking Latino parents with limited English proficiency. Ambul Pediatr. 2005;5:56–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Betancourt JR, Jacobs EA. Language barriers to informed consent and confidentiality: the impact on women’s health. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 2000;55:294–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Roberts CM. Meeting the needs of patients with limited English proficiency. J Med Pract Manage. 2001;17:71–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Pape T. Legal and ethical considerations of informed consent. AORN J. 1997;65:1122–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Taub HA, Baker MT. A reevaluation of informed consent in the elderly: a method for improving comprehension through direct testing. Clin Res. 1984;32:17–21.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Dunn LB, Lindamer LA, Palmer BW, Golshan S, Schneiderman LJ, Jeste DV. Improving understanding of research consent in middle-aged and elderly patients with psychotic disorders. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2002;10:142–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Dunn LB, Jeste DV. Enhancing informed consent for research and treatment. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001;24:595–607.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. The National Quality Forum. Learning from early adopters: improving patient safety through informed consent in limited english proficiency/low-literacy populations. 2005. Available at: http://www.qualityforum.org/txinformed consent1pager12-07-03.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2005.

  51. Department of Health and Human Services. Protection of human subjects. 2005. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm. Accessed December 14, 2005.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Geriatrics, San Francisco Veterans Administration Medical Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Rebecca L. Sudore MD, C. Seth Landefeld MD, Brie A. Williams MD & Karla Lindquist MS

  2. Division of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Deborah E. Barnes PhD

  3. Division of General Internal Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Dean Schillinger MD

Authors
  1. Rebecca L. Sudore MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Seth Landefeld MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brie A. Williams MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Deborah E. Barnes PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karla Lindquist MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dean Schillinger MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca L. Sudore MD.

Additional information

The results of this study have not yet been presented.

This work was supported by the American Medical Association Foundation, Health Literacy Grants for Residents and Fellows, and pilot funds from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Aging K07 AG000912. Dr. Sudore was supported by the National Institutes of Health Research Training in Geriatric Medicine Grant: AG000212 and by the Pfizer Fellowship in Clear Health Communication. Dr. Schillinger was supported by an NIH Mentored Clinical Scientist Award K-23 RR 16539-03. Dr. Barnes was a consultant for a research study design and analysis for Posit Science Corporation in 2003.

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02743161.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sudore, R.L., Seth Landefeld, C., Williams, B.A. et al. Use of a modified informed consent process among vulnerable patients. J GEN INTERN MED 21, 867–873 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00535.x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00535.x

Key words

Search

Navigation