International Journal of Clinical Oncology

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 156–160 | Cite as

First use of a video to assist the informed consent process in a randomized controlled trial in Japan

  • Nobuyuki Hamajima
  • the Chubu Prostate Cancer Neoadjuvant Therapy Group
Original Article



In the United States, visual instruction using videos to describe health care services in general, and for acquiring informed consent in randomized controlled trials, is becoming routine. This paper reports the first use of video in a randomized trial in Japan.


A video designed to describe treatment options to patients for prerandomization in a controlled trial for prostate cancer treatments was produced and distributed. Physicians participating in the trial were surveyed by questionnaire regarding the use of the video.


Of 47 eligible patients with prostate cancer, enrolled in this trial between 1992 and 1994, 20 patients (43%) viewed the video and 27 patients (57%) received all information from the physician. The objective of this study was to determine if viewing the video influenced the patient's desire to express a choice between treatment options. After receiving the information, 11 of 20 patients (55%) who viewed the video, and 22 of 27 patients (81%) who did not view the video, expressed a preference. The difference in expression of a treatment preference between patients in each group was not significant. When the responses of all the patients in the trial are combined, 33 of 47 patients (70%) expressed a treatment preference.


The benefits of providing information regarding treatment options in a video format, compared to other means of explanation, remains to be elucidated. However, videos may be a preferable method for acquiring informed consent from patients participating in randomized control trials.

Key words

consent prostate cancer video 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences in collaboration with the World Health Organization. International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Geneva, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Royal College of Physicians. Guidelines on the Practice of Ethics Committees in Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. 2nd ed. London; RCP, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Japan Society of Clinical Oncology. Guideline on the Practice of Clinical Trials with Special Emphasis on Phase III Trials. J Jpn Soc Cancer Ther 1997;32:67–114 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Williams CJ, Zwitter M. Informed consent in European multicentre randomised clinical trials-are patients really informed? Eur J Cancer 1994;30A:907–910.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shinoda M, Ohota K, Kobayashi T, Hyodo I, Watanabe T, Eguchi K. Doctors' dilemma of the informed consent in cancer clinical trials: the results of questionnaires for Japanese oncologists. Proc Jpn Cancer Assoc 1994;633.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taylor KM, Shapiro M, Soskolne CL, Margolese RG. Physician response to informed consent regulations for randomized clinical trials. Cancer 1987;60:1415–1422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Muss HB, White DR, Michielutte R, Richards F II, Cooper MR, Williams S, Stuart JJ, Spurr CL. Written informed consent in patients with breast cancer. Cancer, 1979;43:1545–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cassileth BR, Zupkins R, Sutton-Smith K, March V. Informed consent—why are its goals imperfectly realized? New Engl J Med 1980;302:896–900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barbour GL, Blumenkrentz JM. Videotape aids informed consent decision. JAMA 1978;240:2741–2742.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fisher WB, Cohen SJ, Hammond MK, Turner S, Loehrer PJ. Clinical trials in cancer therapy: effects to improve patient enrollment by community oncologists. Med Pediat Oncol 1991;19:165–168.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grossman SA, Piantodosi S, Covahey C. Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families? J Clin Oncol 1994;12:2211–2215.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aaronson NK, Visser-Pol E, Leenhouts GHMW, Muller MJ, van der Schot ACM, van Dam FSAM, Kues RB, Koning CCE, Huinink WWB, van Dongen JA, Dubbelman R. Telephone-based nursing intervention improves the effectiveness of the informed consent process in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:984–996.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gunby P. From cell populations to human populations, cardiovascular research examines possibilities. JAMA 1992;267:1046–1051.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rice B. Educate your patients without taking more time. Med Econ 1992;69:92–105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Randall T. Producers of videodisc programs strive to expand patient's role in medical decision-making process. JAMA 1993;270:160–162.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hopper KD, Zajdel M, Hulse SF, Yoanidis NR, TenHave TR, Labuski MR, Houts PS, Brensinger CM, Hartman DS. Interactive method of informing patients of the risks of intravenous contrast media. Radiology 1994;192:67–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Japanese Urological Association and the Japanese Pathological Society. General Rules for, Clinical and Pathological Studies on Prostate Cancer. Kanehara, Tokyo, 1985.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET, Carbone PP. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 1982;5:649–655.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zelen M. A new design for randomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1979;300:1242–1245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hamajima N. Randomized controlled trials on post-marketing drugs for cancer patients and informed consent. J Jpn, Soc Cancer Ther 1992;27:1701–1706 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nielsen E, Sheppard MA. Television as a patient education tool: a review of its effectiveness. Patient Educ Couns 1988;11:3–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haimoff EH, Rudin DE. Videos enhance patient complicance. Dent Econ 1993;83:29–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Agre P, Kurtz RC, Krauss BJ. A randomized trial using videotape to present consent information for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 1994;40:271–276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ellenberg SS. Randomization designs in comparative clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1984;310:1404–1408.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© JSCO/CLJ 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nobuyuki Hamajima
    • 1
  • the Chubu Prostate Cancer Neoadjuvant Therapy Group
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of EpidemiologyAichi Cancer Center Research InstituteNagoyaJapan

Personalised recommendations