Article Text
Abstract
Background: Concern has been expressed about the process of consent to clinical trials, particularly in phase I “first-in-man” trials. Trial participant information sheets are often lengthy and technical. Content-based readability testing of sheets, which is often required to obtain research ethics approval for trials in the USA, is limited and cannot indicate how information will perform.
Methods: An independent-groups design was used to study the user-testing performance of the participant information sheet from the phase I TGN1412 trial. Members of the public were asked to read it, then find and demonstrate understanding of 21 key aspects of the trial. The participant information sheet was then rewritten, redesigned and tested on 20 members of the public, using the same 21-item questionnaire.
Results: On the original TGN1412 participant information sheet, participants could not find answers and some of the found information was not understood. Six of 21 questions, including those relating to placebo, follow-up visits and the emergency phone number, were found by eight or fewer of 10 participants. The revised information sheet performed better, with the answers to 17 of 21 questions found and understood by all 20 participants.
Conclusions: Tests showed that the TGN1412 participant information sheet may not inform participants adequately for consent. Revising its content and design led to significant improvements. Writers of materials for trial participants should take account of good practice in information design. Performance-based user testing may be a useful method to indicate strengths and weaknesses in trial materials.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
▸ Figs 1–6 are published online only at http://jme.bmj.com/content/vol35/issue9
Competing interests DKR is a director of LUTO Research Ltd, a University of Leeds spin-out company that provides information writing and testing services to the pharmaceutical industry. JS is chair of an NHS research ethics committee, but the views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the National Research Ethics Service. BP provides graphic design services to the pharmaceutical industry and the NHS.
Linked Articles
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Readability and understandability of clinical research patient information leaflets and consent forms in Ireland and the UK: a retrospective quantitative analysis
- Qualitative study investigating the underlying motivations of healthy participants in phase I clinical trials
- Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of enhanced informed consent compared to standard informed consent to improve patient understanding of early phase oncology clinical trials (CONSENT)
- Assessing the readability and patient comprehension of rheumatology medicine information sheets: a cross-sectional Health Literacy Study
- An empirical study on the preferred size of the participant information sheet in research
- “We saw human guinea pigs explode”
- The design and user-testing of a question prompt list for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
- Discrepancy between participants' understanding and desire to know in informed consent: are they informed about what they really want to know?
- Learning from the TGN1412 trial
- The concise argument