Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 21, Issue 8, pp 867–873 | Cite as

Use of a modified informed consent process among vulnerable patients

A descriptive study
  • Rebecca L. Sudore
  • C. Seth Landefeld
  • Brie A. Williams
  • Deborah E. Barnes
  • Karla Lindquist
  • Dean Schillinger
Original Articles

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.

Key words

informed consent health literacy communication vulnerable populations ethics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wendler D. Can we ensure that all research subjects give valid consent? Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2201–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. 5.
    Levine R. Ethics and Regulations of Clinical Research. 2nd edn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Murgatroyd RJ, Cooper RM. Readability of informed consent forms. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1991;48:2651–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grunder TM. On the readability of surgical consent forms. N Engl J Med. 1980;302:900–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Young DR, Hooker DT, Freeberg FE. Informed consent documents: increasing comprehension by reducing reading level. IRB. 1990;12:1–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2004;292:1593–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wirshing DA, Wirshing WC, Marder SR, Liberman RP, Mintz J. Informed consent: assessment of comprehension. Am J Psychiatry. 1998;155:1508–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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. 27.
    Schillinger D, Grumbach K, Piette J, et al. Association of health literacy with diabetes outcomes. JAMA. 2002;288:475–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tannenbaum S. The eye chart and Dr. Snellen. J Am Optom Assoc. 1971;42:89–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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. 30.
    McLaughlin GH. SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Reading. 1969;12:639–46.Google Scholar
  31. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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. 34.
    Corbie-Smith GM. Minority recruitment and participation in health research. NC Med J. 2004;65:385–7.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Torke AM, Corbie-Smith GM, Branch WT Jr. African American patients’ perspectives on medical decision making. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:525–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Davis TC, Bocchini JA Jr, Fredrickson D, et al. Parent comprehension of polio vaccine information pamphlets. Pediatrics. 1996;97(part 1): 804–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Leyva M, Sharif I, Ozuah PO. Health literacy among Spanish-speaking Latino parents with limited English proficiency. Ambul Pediatr. 2005;5:56–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Roberts CM. Meeting the needs of patients with limited English proficiency. J Med Pract Manage. 2001;17:71–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pape T. Legal and ethical considerations of informed consent. AORN J. 1997;65:1122–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dunn LB, Jeste DV. Enhancing informed consent for research and treatment. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001;24:595–607.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.Google Scholar
  51. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca L. Sudore
    • 1
  • C. Seth Landefeld
    • 1
  • Brie A. Williams
    • 1
  • Deborah E. Barnes
    • 2
  • Karla Lindquist
    • 1
  • Dean Schillinger
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Geriatrics, San Francisco Veterans Administration Medical CenterUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Division of PsychiatryUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Division of General Internal Medicine, San Francisco General HospitalUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations