Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 243–257 | Cite as

Moving Forward on Consent Practices in Australia

  • Rebekah E. McWhirterEmail author
  • Lisa Eckstein
Original Research


Allowing persons to make an informed choice about their participation in research is a pre-eminent ethical and legal requirement. Almost universally, this requirement has been addressed through the provision of written patient information sheets and consent forms. Researchers and others have raised concerns about the extent to which such forms—particularly given their frequent lengthiness and complexity—provide participants with the tools and knowledge necessary for autonomous decision-making. Concerns are especially pronounced for certain participant groups, such as persons with low literacy and Indigenous persons. Multimedia strategies have the potential to usefully supplement current consent practices in Australia; however, information is needed about the need for supplementary consent practices, along with drivers for and barriers against adoption. This study initiates the required evidence base through an audit of informed consent practices for medical research in the Australian state of Tasmania to assess the need for, and current uptake of, supplementary consent strategies. Drivers for and barriers against adoption of multimedia consent practices were explored in detail through interviews with key stakeholders, including researchers, HREC chairs and members, and research participants, including Indigenous participants.


Informed consent Research ethics Multimedia consent Consent apps 

Supplementary material

11673_2018_9843_MOESM1_ESM.docx (32 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 31 kb)


  1. Afolabi, M., N. Mcgrath, U. D’Alessandro, et al. 2017. Development and evaluation of a multimedia tool for obtaining informed consent in the Gambia: A mixed method study. BMJ Global Health 2 (S2): A6–A7.Google Scholar
  2. Afolabi, M.O., K. Bojang, U. D’Alessandro, et al. 2014. Multimedia informed consent tool for a low literacy African research population: Development and pilot-testing. Journal of Clinical Research & Bioethics 5(3): 178.Google Scholar
  3. Albala, I., M. Doyle, and P.S. Appelbaum. 2010. The evolution of consent forms for research: A quarter century of changes’. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 32(3): 7–11.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2008. 4228.0—Adult literacy and life skills survey, summary results, Australia, 2006 (Reissue). January 9. Accessed February 9, 2018.
  5. Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council. 2007. National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra.Google Scholar
  6. Beardsley, E., M. Jefford, and L. Mileshkin. 2007. Longer consent forms for clinical trials compromise patient understanding: So why are they lengthening? Journal of Clinical Oncology 25(9): e13–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger, O., B.H. Gronberg, K. Sand, S. Kaasa, and J.H. Loge. 2008. The length of consent documents in oncological trials is doubled in twenty years. Annals of Oncology 20(2): 379–385.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bickmore, T.W., L.M. Pfeifer, and M.K. Paasche-Orlow. 2009. Using computer agents to explain medical documents to patients with low health literacy. Patient Education and Counseling 75(3): 315–320.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Breese, P.E., W.J. Burman, S. Goldberg, and S.E. Weis. 2007. Education level, primary language, and comprehension of the informed consent process. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2(4): 69–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Buccini, L.D.., D. Iverson, P. Caputi, and C. Jones. 2010. An Australian based study on the readability of HIV/AIDS and Type 2 diabetes clinical trial informed consent documents. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7(3): 313–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. 2010. Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Ottawa.Google Scholar
  12. Castelnuovo, B., K. Newell, Y.C. Manabe, and G. Robertson. 2014. Multi-media educational tool increases knowledge of clinical trials in Uganda. Journal of Clinical Research & Bioethics 5(January): 165.Google Scholar
  13. Christopher, P., M. Foti, K. Roy-Bujnowski, and P. Appelbaum. 2007. Consent form readability and educational levels of potential participants in mental health research. Psychiatric Services 58(2): 227–232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cornell University Office of Research Integrity and Assurance. 2015. Institutional review board—Required components of informed consent. Accessed July 10, 2017.
  15. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. 2016. International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans.
  16. Emanuel, E., D. Wendler, and C. Grady. 2000. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 283(20): 2701–2711.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Faden, R., and T. Beauchamp. 1986. A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Falagas, M., I. Korbila, K. Giannopoulou, B. Kondilis, and G. Peppas. 2009. Informed consent: How much and what do patients understand? The American Journal of Surgery 198(3): 420–435.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Flory J., and Emanuel E. 2004. Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: A systematic review. JAMA 292(13): 1593–1601.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Grady, C. 2015. Enduring and emerging challenges of informed consent. New England Journal of Medicine 372(9): 855–862.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Grady, C., S. Cummings, M. Rowbotham, M. McConnell, E. Ashley, and G. Kang. 2017. Informed consent. New England Journal of Medicine 376(9): 856–867.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Harmell, A., B. Palmer, and D. Jeste. 2012. Preliminary study of a web-based tool for enhancing the informed consent process in schizophrenia research. Schizophrenia Research 141(2-3): 247–250.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. High Court of Australia. 1992. Rogers v Whitaker, 175 CLR 479.Google Scholar
  24. Jefford, M., L. Mileshkin, J. Matthews, et al. 2011. Satisfaction with the decision to participate in cancer clinical trials is high, but understanding is a problem. Supportive Care in Cancer 19(3): 371–379.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Jeste, D., B. Palmer, S. Golshan, et al. 2009. Multimedia consent for research in people with schizophrenia and normal subjects: A randomized controlled trial. Schizophrenia Bulletin 35(4): 719–729.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Joffe, S., E. Cook, P. Cleary, J. Clark, and J. Weeks. 2001. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: A cross-sectional survey. The Lancet 358(9295): 1772–1777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johns Hopkins Office of Human Subjects Research. 2007. Informed consent guidance—How to prepare a readable consent form. Accessed February 9, 2018.
  28. Mahnke, A., J. Plasek, D. Hoffman, et al. 2014. A rural community’s involvement in the design and usability testing of a computer-based informed consent process for the personalized medicine research project. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 164(1): 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Cancer Institute. 2014. Simplification of informed consent documents. Conducting Clinical Trials. Accessed May 19, 2017.
  30. National Health and Medical Research Council. 2015. Standardised participant information and consent forms. Human Research Ethics Portal. Accessed July 10, 2017.
  31. Nishimura, A., J. Carey, P. Erwin, J. Tilburt, M. Murad, and J. McCormick. 2013. Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: A systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. BMC Medical Ethics 14(1): 28.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Olver, I., L. Buchanan, C. Laidlaw, and G. Poulton. 1995. The adequacy of consent forms for informing patients entering oncological clinical trials. Annals of Oncology 6(9): 867–870.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Paasche-Orlow, M., F. Brancati, H. Taylor, S. Jain, A. Pandit, and M. Wolf. 2013. Readability of consent form templates: A second look. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 35(4): 12–19.Google Scholar
  34. Paasche-Orlow, M., H. Taylor, and F. Brancati. 2003. Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. New England Journal of Medicine 348(8): 721–726.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rowbotham, M., J. Astin, K. Greene, and S. Cummings. 2013. Interactive informed consent: Randomized comparison with paper consents. PLOS ONE 8(3): e58603.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Simon, C., D. Klein, and H. Schartz. 2016. Interactive multimedia consent for biobanking: A randomized trial. Genetics in Medicine 18(1): 57–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Supreme Court of Western Australia -Court of Appeal. 2008. Hassan v The Minister for Health [No 2] 149. WASCA.Google Scholar
  38. Tamariz, L., A. Palacio, M. Robert, and E. Marcus. 2013. Improving the informed consent process for research subjects with low literacy: A systematic review. Journal of General Internal Medicine 28(1): 121–126.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Taylor, H., and D. Bramley. 2012. An analysis of the readability of patient information and consent forms used in research studies in anaesthesia in Australia and New Zealand. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care 40(6): 995–998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. U.S. Government. 2017. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. Federal Register. Scholar
  41. World Medical Association. 2013. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310(20): 2191–2194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Law and Genetics, Faculty of LawUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  2. 2.Menzies Institute for Health ResearchUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  3. 3.Centre for Law and Genetics, Faculty of LawUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations