Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families?

Stuart A Grossman, Steven Plantadosi, Charles Covahey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: This study was conducted to assess the readability of informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology protocols. Methods: One hundred thirty-seven consent forms from 88 protocols that accrued patients at The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center were quantitatively analyzed. These included 58 of 99 (59%) institutional protocols approved by The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center's Clinical Research Committee and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) over a 2-year period, and 30 active Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), and Pediatric Oncology Group (POG) trials. The consent forms described phase I (17%), phase I/II (36%), phase III (29%), and nontherapeutic (18%) studies. Each was optically scanned, checked for accuracy, and analyzed using readability software. The following three readability indices were obtained for each consent form: the Flesch Reading Ease Score, and grade level readability as determined by the Flesch-Kincaid Formula and the Gunning Fog Index. Results: The mean ± SD Flesch Reading Ease Score for the consent forms was 52.6 ± 8.7 (range, 33 to 78). The mean grade level was 11.1 ± 1.67 (range, 6 to 14) using the Flesch- Kincaid Formula and 14.1 ± 1.8 (range, 8 to 17) using the Gunning Fog Index. Readability at or below an eighth-grade level was found in 6% of the consent forms using the Flesch-Kincaid Formula and in 1% using the Gunning Fog Index. Readability was similar for consent forms that described institutional, cooperative group, and phase I, II, and III protocols. Conclusion: Consent forms from clinical oncology protocols are written at a level that is difficult for most patients to read, despite national, cooperative group, institutional, and departmental review. The consent process, which is crucial to clinical research, should be strengthened by improving the readability of the consent forms.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2211-2215
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Volume12
Issue number10
StatePublished - Oct 1994

Fingerprint

Consent Forms
Medical Oncology
Clinical Protocols
Weather
Reading
Radiation Oncology
Research Ethics Committees
Group Psychotherapy
Research
Radiotherapy
Software
Pediatrics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families? / Grossman, Stuart A; Plantadosi, Steven; Covahey, Charles.

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 12, No. 10, 10.1994, p. 2211-2215.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{900b63e404824533a8d431df5e1c4865,
title = "Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families?",
abstract = "Purpose: This study was conducted to assess the readability of informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology protocols. Methods: One hundred thirty-seven consent forms from 88 protocols that accrued patients at The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center were quantitatively analyzed. These included 58 of 99 (59{\%}) institutional protocols approved by The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center's Clinical Research Committee and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) over a 2-year period, and 30 active Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), and Pediatric Oncology Group (POG) trials. The consent forms described phase I (17{\%}), phase I/II (36{\%}), phase III (29{\%}), and nontherapeutic (18{\%}) studies. Each was optically scanned, checked for accuracy, and analyzed using readability software. The following three readability indices were obtained for each consent form: the Flesch Reading Ease Score, and grade level readability as determined by the Flesch-Kincaid Formula and the Gunning Fog Index. Results: The mean ± SD Flesch Reading Ease Score for the consent forms was 52.6 ± 8.7 (range, 33 to 78). The mean grade level was 11.1 ± 1.67 (range, 6 to 14) using the Flesch- Kincaid Formula and 14.1 ± 1.8 (range, 8 to 17) using the Gunning Fog Index. Readability at or below an eighth-grade level was found in 6{\%} of the consent forms using the Flesch-Kincaid Formula and in 1{\%} using the Gunning Fog Index. Readability was similar for consent forms that described institutional, cooperative group, and phase I, II, and III protocols. Conclusion: Consent forms from clinical oncology protocols are written at a level that is difficult for most patients to read, despite national, cooperative group, institutional, and departmental review. The consent process, which is crucial to clinical research, should be strengthened by improving the readability of the consent forms.",
author = "Grossman, {Stuart A} and Steven Plantadosi and Charles Covahey",
year = "1994",
month = "10",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "2211--2215",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0732-183X",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families?

AU - Grossman, Stuart A

AU - Plantadosi, Steven

AU - Covahey, Charles

PY - 1994/10

Y1 - 1994/10

N2 - Purpose: This study was conducted to assess the readability of informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology protocols. Methods: One hundred thirty-seven consent forms from 88 protocols that accrued patients at The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center were quantitatively analyzed. These included 58 of 99 (59%) institutional protocols approved by The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center's Clinical Research Committee and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) over a 2-year period, and 30 active Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), and Pediatric Oncology Group (POG) trials. The consent forms described phase I (17%), phase I/II (36%), phase III (29%), and nontherapeutic (18%) studies. Each was optically scanned, checked for accuracy, and analyzed using readability software. The following three readability indices were obtained for each consent form: the Flesch Reading Ease Score, and grade level readability as determined by the Flesch-Kincaid Formula and the Gunning Fog Index. Results: The mean ± SD Flesch Reading Ease Score for the consent forms was 52.6 ± 8.7 (range, 33 to 78). The mean grade level was 11.1 ± 1.67 (range, 6 to 14) using the Flesch- Kincaid Formula and 14.1 ± 1.8 (range, 8 to 17) using the Gunning Fog Index. Readability at or below an eighth-grade level was found in 6% of the consent forms using the Flesch-Kincaid Formula and in 1% using the Gunning Fog Index. Readability was similar for consent forms that described institutional, cooperative group, and phase I, II, and III protocols. Conclusion: Consent forms from clinical oncology protocols are written at a level that is difficult for most patients to read, despite national, cooperative group, institutional, and departmental review. The consent process, which is crucial to clinical research, should be strengthened by improving the readability of the consent forms.

AB - Purpose: This study was conducted to assess the readability of informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology protocols. Methods: One hundred thirty-seven consent forms from 88 protocols that accrued patients at The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center were quantitatively analyzed. These included 58 of 99 (59%) institutional protocols approved by The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center's Clinical Research Committee and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) over a 2-year period, and 30 active Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), and Pediatric Oncology Group (POG) trials. The consent forms described phase I (17%), phase I/II (36%), phase III (29%), and nontherapeutic (18%) studies. Each was optically scanned, checked for accuracy, and analyzed using readability software. The following three readability indices were obtained for each consent form: the Flesch Reading Ease Score, and grade level readability as determined by the Flesch-Kincaid Formula and the Gunning Fog Index. Results: The mean ± SD Flesch Reading Ease Score for the consent forms was 52.6 ± 8.7 (range, 33 to 78). The mean grade level was 11.1 ± 1.67 (range, 6 to 14) using the Flesch- Kincaid Formula and 14.1 ± 1.8 (range, 8 to 17) using the Gunning Fog Index. Readability at or below an eighth-grade level was found in 6% of the consent forms using the Flesch-Kincaid Formula and in 1% using the Gunning Fog Index. Readability was similar for consent forms that described institutional, cooperative group, and phase I, II, and III protocols. Conclusion: Consent forms from clinical oncology protocols are written at a level that is difficult for most patients to read, despite national, cooperative group, institutional, and departmental review. The consent process, which is crucial to clinical research, should be strengthened by improving the readability of the consent forms.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027943564&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027943564&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 2211

EP - 2215

JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 0732-183X

IS - 10

ER -