Paper
Informed consent in European multicentre randomised clinical trials — Are patients really informed?

https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-8049(94)90111-2Get rights and content

Abstract

This study was designed to examine the standard of consent used by investigators in European randomised clinical trials (RCT). The participants of 12 multicentre RCTs published in the European Journal of Cancer in the years 1990–1992 were asked to complete a short questionnaire regarding their practice of obtaining consent in the trial reported. Anonymity was assured. Replies were received from 60 of 88 clinicians contacted. Data showed that 12% of clinicians did not inform their patients about the trial prior to randomisation. Thirty-eight per cent of clinicians did not always tell patients that they had been assigned to their treatment randomly. Only 32% of clinicians used written consent, 21% used written information without obligatory signing, 42% used verbal consent, and in 5% no consent was sought. Even when information was given, only 58% of clinicians gave full information on all aspects of the trial and 42% gave information on the proposed treatment arm only (27% revealing inclusion in an RCT). When examined by geographical origin, clinicians in northern Europe were more likely to obtain full consent than those from southern Europe. Similarly, the level of consent was higher in trials of supportive care than in trials testing curative or palliative antitumour therapies.

References (6)

  • Report of the Royal College of Physicians. Research involving patients

    J R Coll Physic

    (1990)
  • Declaration of Helsinki: Recommendations for Guiding Medical Doctors in Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects

    (1964)
  • MH Tattersall et al.

    Issues in informed consent

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (76)

  • Contributory factors to the evolution of the concept and practice of informed consent in clinical research: A narrative review

    2020, Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
    Citation Excerpt :

    With the benefit of contemporary research integrity frameworks, it is easy to condemn these practices, but it was not customary at the time to obtain consent from patients to use their tissue for research purposes. An anonymous survey of 60 clinicians published in 1994 revealed that only 32% asked patients to provide written consent, and 5% did not seek consent at all [43]. Another study of 484 oncologists showed that 72% felt that IC hindered the physician-patient relationship and 87% of physicians stated IC regulations was a barrier to recruitment [44].

  • Qualitative research to improve RCT recruitment: Issues arising in establishing research collaborations

    2008, Contemporary Clinical Trials
    Citation Excerpt :

    In Quartet, this was also related to the bureaucratic tasks involved in securing separate ethics and governance approvals and then patients' consent for another study, with the inevitably delayed onset of the collaboration. Obtaining patients' consent to participate in any research can prove difficult [6,25,28–30] — even more so when it has to be achieved twice, as was the case with Quartet and the existing RCTs. The complexity of the recruitment process necessitated expanding the original Quartet aims to include all stages of recruitment.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text