Evaluating the quality of informed consent

被引:88
|
作者
Sugarman, J
Lavori, PW
Boeger, M
Cain, C
Edson, R
Morrison, V
Yeh, SS
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Univ, Phoebe R Berman Bioeth Inst, Dept Med, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
[2] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Ctr Study Med Eth & Humanities, Dept Med, Durham, NC 27706 USA
[3] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Ctr Study Med Eth & Humanities, Dept Philosophy, Durham, NC 27706 USA
[4] VA Cooperat Studies Program Coordinating Ctr, Palo Alto, CA USA
[5] VA Palo Alto Hlth Care Syst, Palo Alto, CA USA
[6] Stanford Univ, Sch Med, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[7] Minneapolis VAMC, Minneapolis, MN USA
[8] Northport VAMC, Northport, NY USA
关键词
D O I
10.1191/1740774505cn066oa
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Context Although informed consent is a critical means of protecting the rights and interests of participants in clinical research, effective and efficient means of evaluating the quality of consent are needed. Having such means will be important to monitoring consent and testing potential improvements in the consent process. Objective To develop and test a practical and general means of evaluating the quality of informed consent for clinical research. Methods We developed and tested the Brief Informed Consent Evaluation Protocol (BICEP), a short telephone-based assessment of informed consent. As soon as patient-participants completed the informed consent process for a participating VA Cooperative Studies Program clinical trial they called an interviewer who administered the BICEP. Results 632 participants completed BICEP, representing eight ongoing studies from 14 VA and one non-VA medical centers across the country. Site coordinators reported little to no difficulty implementing BICEP. The average duration of BICEP was 8.8 minutes (SD 3.6). Overall, patient-participants evaluated the informed consent process positively. A reliable coding system was then developed to analyze the verbatim responses of the final 191 participants. An Informed Consent Aggregate Score (ICAS) had a mean score of 8.23 (SD 1.17) with a range of 0-10, with 10 a perfect score; and a Therapeutic Misconception Aggregate Score (TMAS) had a mean of 1.62 (SID 0.93) with a range of 0-5, with 5 a perfect score. Conclusions The BICEP is an efficient means of evaluating informed consent that is acceptable to research participants and research personnel. While participants tend to be satisfied with the informed consent process, the BICEP indicates there is room for improvement in the informed consent process for research.
引用
收藏
页码:34 / 41
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluating the quality of informed consent.
    Sugarman, J
    Lavori, PW
    Boeger, M
    Cain, C
    Nisco, P
    Busette, A
    Edson, B
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2002, 17 : 175 - 175
  • [2] How informed is informed consent?-Evaluating the quality of informed consent among surgical patients in a tertiary care hospital in Nepal
    Basukala, Sunil
    Shrestha, Oshan
    Thapa, Niranjan
    Karki, Sagun
    Pandit, Ayushma
    Thapa, Bikash Bikram
    Thapa, Anup
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2023, 18 (07):
  • [3] Evaluating Informed Consent for Colonoscopy
    Gett, Rohan M.
    Cooray, Anuk R.
    Gold, Darren
    Danta, Mark
    [J]. SURGICAL LAPAROSCOPY ENDOSCOPY & PERCUTANEOUS TECHNIQUES, 2014, 24 (04): : 345 - 352
  • [4] Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents
    Jefford, Michael
    Moore, Rosemary
    [J]. LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2008, 9 (05): : 485 - 493
  • [5] “Informed” Consent: An Audit of Informed Consent of Cesarean Section Evaluating Patient Education and Awareness
    Kirane A.G.
    Gaikwad N.B.
    Bhingare P.E.
    Mule V.D.
    [J]. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India, 2015, 65 (6) : 382 - 385
  • [6] Enhancement of informed consent quality
    Gomez Ramos, Maria Jesus
    Gonzalez Valverde, Francisco Miguel
    [J]. ACTA BIOETHICA, 2012, 18 (02): : 247 - 256
  • [7] Evaluating Informed Consent Obtained by Surgical Residents
    Hope, William W.
    Walters, Kris
    Bools, Lindsay M.
    Adams, Ashley
    Hooks, W. Borden, III
    Clancy, Thomas V.
    [J]. AMERICAN SURGEON, 2014, 80 (05) : 522 - 524
  • [8] The quality of informed consent: a Portuguese experience
    Ferreira, Pedro
    Barradas, Ana
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2020, 29 (SUPPL 1) : S101 - S101
  • [9] FACTORS AFFECTING QUALITY OF INFORMED CONSENT
    LAVELLEJONES, C
    BYRNE, DJ
    RICE, P
    CUSCHIERI, A
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1993, 306 (6882): : 885 - 890
  • [10] PATIENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE QUALITY OF INFORMED CONSENT
    LEHMANN, L
    SULMASY, DP
    LEVINE, DM
    [J]. CLINICAL RESEARCH, 1992, 40 (02): : A614 - A614