Pharmacogenetic Research: Perceptions of Informed Consent

Drug information journal : DIJ / Drug Information Association volume 36, pages83–93(2002)Cite this article

Abstract

GlaxoSmithKline (formerly Glaxo Wellcome Genetics Directorate) undertook a descriptive study to elicit volunteers’ perceptions of a pharmacogenetic research consent form, an educational brochure, and a video; and to identify modifications in these materials that would enhance their usefulness. Face-to-face interviews were conducted to obtain feedback on the material and assess volunteer understanding of the basic components of the study. Although repeated exposure to key information in different formats resulted in improved comprehension, almost one-third of respondents could not accurately describe the two options for participating in the pharmacogenetic research. Almost all of the respondents reported that they would like to have the brochure, video, or both, in addition to the consent form. These results underscore the importance of providing volunteers with the opportunity for discussion with the study physician. They also support the use of supplementary aids to accommodate different styles of processing information. The respondents’ suggestions will be considered when the materials are revised.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. 1.

    Rapoport DM. Consent process. Reg Aff Focus. July 2000;7–3.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Protecting Human Subjects. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Protection of Human Subjects. 46 Federal Register. 8386 (1981) (codified at 45 CFR §46).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Reilly PR, Boshar MF, Holtzman SH. Ethical issues in genetic research: Disclosure and informed consent. Nature Genetics. 1997;15:16–20.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Meade CD. Improving understanding of the in-formed consent document. Semin Oncol Nurs. May 1999;15:124–137.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    White LJ, Jones JS, Felton CW, Pool LC. Informed consent for medical research: Common discrepancies and readability. Acad Emerg Med. 1996;3:745–750.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Philipson SJ, Doyle MA, Gabram SGA, Nightingale C, Philipson EH. Informed consent for research: A study to evaluate readability and processability to effect change. J Investig Med. 1995;43:459–467.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Tankanow RM, Burgunda VS, Weiskopf JA. Patients’ perceived understanding of informed consent in investigational drug studies. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1992;49:633–635.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Verheggen FWSM, Jonkers R, Kok G. Patients’ perceptions on informed consent and the quality of information disclosure in clinical trials. Patient Educ Counsel. 1996;29:137–153.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Harris KA. The informational needs of patients with cancer and their families. Cancer Pract. 1998;6:39–46.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hinds C, Streater A, Mood D. Functions and preferred methods of receiving information related to radiotherapy. Cancer Nurs. 1995;5:374–384.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Silva MC, Sorrell JM. Enhancing comprehension of information for informed consent: A review of empirical research. IRB: A Review Human Subjects Research. Jan/Feb 1988;10:1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Shmerling A, Schattner P, Piterman L. Qualitative research in medical practice. Med J Aust. 1993;158:619–622.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Protection of Human Subjects. 46 Federal Register. 8951 (1981), as amended at 61 Federal Register. 57289 (1996) (codified at 21 CFR §50).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Agre P, McKee K, Gargon N, et al. Patient satisfaction with an informed consent process. Cancer Pract. 1997;5:62–67.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Genetics Ethics Advisor, International Head, Pharmacogenetics Process and Implementation, Consultant, Head, Clinical Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Five Moore Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27709, USA

    Elizabeth C. McPherson MSN, RN, Susan C. Ray MED, CCRA, Patricia A. Rieser BSN, RN, CS & Penelope K. Manasco MD

Authors
  1. Elizabeth C. McPherson MSN, RN
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan C. Ray MED, CCRA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patricia A. Rieser BSN, RN, CS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Penelope K. Manasco MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth C. McPherson MSN, RN.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McPherson, E.C., Ray, S.C., Rieser, P.A. et al. Pharmacogenetic Research: Perceptions of Informed Consent. Ther Innov Regul Sci 36, 83–93 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150203600113

Download citation

Key Words

  • Informed consent
  • Descriptive study
  • Pharmacogenetic research
  • Written and audiovisual materials for informed consent
  • Perceptions of informed consent