RESEARCH ETHICS

Patients' perceptions of information provided in clinical trials

P R Ferguson

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Professor P R Ferguson, Department of Law, University of Dundee, Park Place, Dundee, DD1 4HN, UK;
p.r.ferguson{at}dundee.ac.uk

Background: According to the Declaration of Helsinki, patients who take part in a clinical trial must be adequately informed about the trial's aims, methods, expected benefits, and potential risks. The declaration does not, however, elaborate on what "adequately informed" might amount to, in practice. Medical researchers and Local Research Ethics Committees attempt to ensure that the information which potential participants are given is pitched at an appropriate level, but few studies have considered whether the patients who take part in such trials feel they have been given adequate information, or whether they feel able to understand that information.

Objectives: To explore trial participants' views (i) on the amount of information provided, and (ii) of their own understanding of that information.

Design: Structured interviews of patients participating in clinical trials for the treatment of chronic medical condition.

Findings: Patients generally felt they were given an appropriate amount of information, and that they were able to understand all or most of it. They felt they were given adequate time to ask questions before agreeing to take part. In comparison with treatment given outwith the research setting, patients generally felt they received more information when participating in a clinical trial.

Conclusions: Researchers sometimes complain that patients are given too much information during clinical trials, and have limited understanding of that information. The present study shows that this perception is not necessarily shared by patients. More research is needed in this area, particularly to gauge whether patient understanding is indeed accurate.

Keywords: Clinical trials; patients' perspectives; research ethics

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Priority Setting and the Public: P Mullen, P Spurgeon. Radcliffe Medical Press, 2000, £24.50, pp 168. ISBN 185775297X

J McMillan
J. Med. Ethics 2002 28: 59. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Fortun, P., West, J., Chalkley, L., Shonde, A., Hawkey, C. (2008). Recall of informed consent information by healthy volunteers in clinical trials. QJM 101: 625-629 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Greenley, R. N., Drotar, D., Zyzanski, S. J., Kodish, E. (2006). Stability of Parental Understanding of Random Assignment in Childhood Leukemia Trials: An Empirical Examination of Informed Consent. JCO 24: 891-897 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Tyrer, P, Seivewright, H, Ferguson, B, Johnson, T (2003). "Cold calling" in psychiatric follow up studies: is it justified?. J. Med. Ethics 29: 238-242 [Abstract] [Full Text]