Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of trials with enhanced consent form intervensions

From: Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials

 

Standard control

   

Sample size

Understanding scores, %

 

Source

 

Intervention

Population

Scenario

 

Control

Intervention

P Value

Paris et al., 2010

Y

Simplified paper document with systematic readability improvement

Patients with stroke, DM, or OSAS

Simulated

115

67

69

NS

 

Y

Simplified paper document developed by a working group of clinical research nurse, IRB member, and healthy volunteer

Patients with stroke, DM, or OSAS

Simulated

114

67

69

NS

Campbell et al., 2008

N

Simplified text in booklet format with color. 7th grade reading level

Healthy volunteers

Simulated

146

64

85

<0.001

Walters and Hamrell, 2008

Y

Simplified paper document. 6th grade reading level

Healthy volunteers

Simulated

317

77

79

NS*

Paris et al., 2007

Y

Simplified paper document with systematic readability improvement

Healthy volunteers

Simulated

99

78

82

≤0.05

 

Y

Simplified paper document developed by a working group of clinical research nurse, IRB member, and healthy volunteer

Healthy volunteers

Simulated

101

78

83

≤0.017

 

Y

Simplified paper document developed by a working group and by systematic readability improvement

Healthy volunteers

Simulated

100

78

82

≤0.05

Campbell et al., 2004

Y

Simplified paper document with revised layout, text styling, and added pictures

Parents of pediatric patients

Simulated

119

47

53

NS

Agre and Rapkin, 2003

N

Simplified paper document presented in booklet form with summary section. 8th grade reading level

Patients with cancer and healthy volunteers

Real

221

69

70

NS

Coyne et al., 2003

Simplified paper document with revised text styling, page layout, and language. 7th grade reading level. Organized in Q/A format°

Patients with cancer

Real

207

69

72

NS‡

Dresden and Levitt, 2001

N

Simplified paper document with revised layout, text styling, and language

Patients in the E.R.

Simulated

100

72

88

<0.0001

Stiles et al., 2001

Simplified paper document with text styling and graphics°

Patients with mental illness and healthy volunteers

Simulated

227

81

81

NS

Bjorn et al., 1999

N

Leaflet used by pharmacology company with revised language, style and layout. Hypertension scenario

Healthy volunteers

Simulated

135

48

56

<.05

 

N

Leaflet used by pharmacology company with revised language, style and layout. Sterilization scenario

Healthy volunteers

Simulated

100

NA

NA

NS

Murphy et al., 1999

N

Simplified paper document. 6th grade reading level with text styling and illustrations

Women at risk for HIV

Simulated

141

70

83

0.0001

Davis et al., 1998

Y

Revised with patient input, readability improved from college to 7th grade level, shortened, booklet format, graphics

Patients and healthy volunteers

Simulated

183

56

58

NS

Rogers et al., 1998

Consent required to “opt out” of study, rather than “opt in”°

Recent mothers

Real

44

30

47

<0.02

Taub et al., 1987

Y

Simplified paper document. 7th grade reading level

Elderly volunteers

Real

235

68

70

NS

 

N

Standard or simplified paper document with “Letter Gothic”, enlarged font

Elderly volunteers

Real

235

71

65

NS*

 

N

Standard or simplified paper document with “Orator”, enlarged all-caps font

Elderly volunteers

Real

235

71

70

NS

Taub et al., 1986

Y

Simplified paper document. 7th grade reading level

Patients with heart disease

Real

188

71

74

NS

Epstein and Lasagna, 1969

Y

Simplified paper document. Shorter with succinct phrasing

Hospital Employees

Simulated

44

45

67

<.001

  1. Abbreviations: NA Not Available, NS Not Significant, DM diabetes mellitus, OSAS obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, HIV human immunodeficienc virus.
  2. Bolded rows indicate trials included in the 2004 systematic review by Flory and Emanuel.
  3. °Human proctor available for question/answer.
  4. * Significant improvement reported for eldest cohorts.
  5. ‡ Understanding assessed within approximately 1 week.